Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

DEATH OF A MEMBER.

Mr. SPEAKER made the following communication to the House:

I regret to have to inform the House of the death of Frederick Alexander Macquisten, Esquire, K.C., late Member for the County of Argyll, and desire to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMAN STEAMSHIP "ALTMARK."

Mr. Levy: asked the Prime Minister whether he is now able to make a statement on the diplomatic discussions between this country and Norway on the "Altmark" episode; and whether it is his intention to publish the texts of the Notes or other correspondence between the two Governments?

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Butler): As I explained in my answer to the hon. Member for Plaistow (Mr. Thorne) on 29th

February, this matter is now under consideration by His Majesty's Government, and there is nothing that can usefully be added at the present time.

Oral Answers to Questions — DARDANELLES STRAITS (ALLIED WARSHIPS).

Mr. Arthur Henderson: asked the Prime Minister whether the Treaty of Mutual Assistance between His Majesty's Government, the French Government, and the Turkish Government is regarded as coming within the terms of Article 19 of the Montreux Convention, so as to permit, if desired, the passage of British and French warships through the Dardanelles Straits during the present war emergency?

Mr. Butler: In the event of the Treaty of Mutual Assistance coming into operation, Turkey would be a belligerent and would, therefore, under Article 20 of the Montreux Convention, have full discretion to permit, if desired, the passage of British and French warships through the Straits. Article 19 is, therefore, not relevant in connection with the Treaty of Mutual Assistance.

Oral Answers to Questions — GREAT BRITAIN AND GERMANY (LORD TAVISTOCK).

Major Sir Jocelyn Lucas: asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the terms of peace purporting to have come through the German Minister in Eire; and whether, in view of the fact that one of the British persons concerned in bringing these terms to this


country did, in fact, act as negotiator in the Riff campaign, there are any grounds for supposing that these proposals have any genuine foundation?

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement respecting the nature of the provisional peace terms recently conveyed indirectly from the German Government to the Foreign Secretary; and whether he is satisfied with their authenticity?

Mr. G. Strauss: asked the Prime Minister what special facilities were given to Lord Tavistock to visit the German legation at Dublin; and whether he is satisfied with the authenticity of the German peace terms brought by Lord Tavistock from Dublin?

Mr. Butler: No special facilities were given to Lord Tavistock to visit Dublin. On his return he published certain proposals which, it was claimed, represented the terms on which the German Government would conclude peace. These proposals had been previously communicated by Lord Tavistock to my Noble Friend. Apart from whatever may have been the merits or demerits of the proposals, there was no evidence to show that they emanated from the German Government or that they could be regarded as authentic. I notice that the German Government and the German Legation at Dublin have officially repudiated these proposals.

Sir J. Lucas: May this not be a case of face-saving on the part of the German Government, in view of subsequent speeches made by members of that Government?

Mr. Butler: I am afraid that I do not follow what my hon. and gallant Friend has in mind.

Mr. G. Strauss: Is any ordinary citizen free to go into the German Legation in Eire or any other country without let or hindrance; secondly, how does the right hon. Gentleman reconcile the latter part of his answer with the fact that Lord Tavistock still maintains that he received his documents from the German Legation?

Mr. Butler: I can only say, in answer to the second part of the Supplementary Question, that statements, which I have seen in the Press, have been issued on behalf of the German Government and of

the German Legation in Dublin. In regard to the first part, the matter is subject to the authority of the officials in Eire, and I can add nothing to what I have already said.

Mr. J. J. Davidson: Are His Majesty's Government taking any cognisance of Lord Tavistock's action, and, as my hon. Friend has asked, may any ordinary citizen undertake such negotiations and bring a reply to His Majesty's Government?

Mr. Butler: No, Sir. Lord Tavistock was not acting in any way on behalf of His Majesty's Government.

Mr. George Griffiths: What is the intention of His Majesty's Government with regard to Lord Tavistock?

Oral Answers to Questions — UNITED STATES MAILS (BRITISH EXAMINATION).

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Prime Minister whether he will take steps to counter the propaganda which is being widely circulated in the United States of America, to the effect that the opening of United States mail camouflages a British effort to learn American trade secrets for the benefit of British firms, especially in view of what took place after the Great War?

The Minister of Information (Sir John Reith): I have been asked to reply. Yes, Sir. Steps to that end are being taken, and I am glad to have this opportunity of denying the allegation to which the hon. and learned Member refers in the latter part of the Question, which has no foundation in fact.

Oral Answers to Questions — FINLAND (MEDIATION).

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the recent pronouncement of the Finnish Foreign Minister that the Finnish Government would welcome friendly mediation from any source; and whether His Majesty's Government will now make it known that they are willing to do all that they are asked for in this direction?

Mr. Butler: I am not aware of the pronouncement to which the hon. Member refers. The Finnish Prime Minister stated on 31st January that the Finnish Government were prepared to negotiate an


honourable peace, but the Finnish Government have not approached His Majesty's Government in the matter of mediation.

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

Mrs. Hardie: asked the Minister of Pensions why the parents of the late Alexander Lumodar, aircraftman, Royal Air Force, who was killed while on a flight over Germany, were refused a pension, in view of the fact that the father of this young man is not in good health and is often unable to work, that he has four children of school age, and that the son was a financial help to the family before and after enlistment?

The Minister of Pensions (Sir Walter Womersley): I assume that the Question refers to the case of the parents of the late Alexander Lumsden, about which I recently wrote to the hon. Lady. I explained then that Mr. Lumsden's circumstances were not such as to make him at the present time eligible for a pension under the Royal Order. I may add, with regard to the last part of the Question, that I am informed that the son made no allotment in favour of his parents.

Mrs. Hardie: Is it not a fact that the father of Mr. Lumsden stated that this young man sent 20s. to 25s. per week to his parents, that the father suffers from ill-health and is often unable to work, and that when he is not at work his wages stop; and will the Minister reconsider this case?

Sir W. Womersley: I am having an inquiry made into the question of whether any allowance is payable, but the War Office records show that the man in question made no allotment.

Mr. Dobbie: asked the Minister of Pensions whether a mother who is in receipt of an allotment from a son who is a member of the Armed Forces of the country is entitled to a pension if the son dies as a result of wounds or illness when on active service if such allotment of the son has not been supplemented by an allowance from the Government?

Sir W. Womersley: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given by me to the hon. and gallant Member for Clitheroe (Sir W. Brass) on 16th November, of which I am sending him a copy.

Mr. Dobbie: Would the Minister inform the House whether the needs test is applied to each and every applicant for such a pension?

Sir W. Womersley: I think the hon. Gentleman had better wait until he receives the answer.

Oral Answers to Questions — OSTEOPATHY.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: asked the Minister of Pensions what response has been made to the offer of the services of the General Council and Register of Osteopaths to his Department?

Sir W. Womersley: I have expressed my appreciation of the offer and have informed the committee that any osteopath who is a registered medical practitioner and who is allocated by the Central Emergency Committee of the British Medical Association for service in one of the Ministry's hospitals would be fully considered for any post, where opportunities existed for the exercise of his special experience.

Mr. Hall: Why do the Department insist upon osteopaths being also medical practitioners, seeing that osteopaths are members of what is now a responsible profession and that thousands of people can give evidence that they are doing excellent work? Can the Minister not reconsider the matter?

Sir W. Womersley: This has always been the custom, but I will certainly look into the matter again.

Miss Wilkinson: Are we to suffer because the Ministry of Pensions cannot possibly alter a custom which dates back to a time when nobody had ever heard of osteopaths?

Sir W. Womersley: I can assure the hon. Lady that nobody suffers.

Mr. Davidson: Is it not a fact that the medical profession will not allow the Minister to change his mind?

Sir W. Womersley: I do not answer for the medical profession.

Mr. Hall: Will the Minister see to it that the medical profession do not call the tune in this matter and that he will rely on his own judgment?

Sir W. Womersley: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I have an open mind in the matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

ANIMAL FEEDING-STUFFS.

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will confer with the Minister of Food with a view to ensuring that every farmer throughout the country should obtain some percentage of his feeding-stuff requirements in the form of a straight-run feeding-stuff; and whether he will consider introducing a standard ration produced from good sound cereals to be sold through the normal channels of distribution, the corn merchants and dealers throughout the country, at an economic price, having regard to the controlled price of livestock throughout the country?

The Minister of Agriculture (Colonel Sir Reginald Dorman-Smith): I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to his Question on this subject on 15th February. As then stated, arrangements are already in hand with the object of making available to farmers an appropriate percentage of straight-run feeding-stuffs. With regard to the second part of the Question, the introduction of a standard ration is open to a number of objections which appear to me, as at present advised, to outweigh the advantages of the proposal.

Mr. De la Bère: Will my right hon. and gallant Friend institute a campaign of fact-finding and inquire into the facts of the feeding-stuffs muddle? In regard to the second part of my Question, will he endeavour to get the Government to take over the feeding-stuffs from the port mills, supervise the processing of wheat there, and see that its distribution does take place? Is he not aware that, although we are now in the seventh month of the war, no steps have been taken to organise the distribution of feeding-stuffs?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: I do not entirely agree with the last part of my hon. Friend's statement. According to the information we get, we are trying to keep in touch with events.

Mr. De la Bère: These sentiments are all right, but they carry us nowhere. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I shall be bound to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

PRODUCTION COSTS.

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the fact that many agricultural products, including livestock, have been controlled at prices below the cost of production, he would confer with the Minister of Food with a view to preparing a comprehensive schedule of costs of production for the agricultural industry, with a view to these costs, plus an agreed reasonable percentage, being substituted for the existing controlled prices, since at the present time it is impossible for the farmer to obtain a fair return for his products?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: I cannot accept my hon. Friend's statements that the prices of many agricultural products have been controlled at levels below the cost of production or that farmers are not receiving fair returns for their produce; and I would remind him of the undertaking already given that future prices will take account of increases in production costs. In the circumstances I do not propose to adopt his suggestion.

Mr. De la Bère: Is it not a fact that wrong methods have been employed—if there have been any methods at all? What other industry in the whole country would be asked to produce under the cost of production and to produce more? The whole thing is absolutely unsatisfactory.

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: Perhaps my hon. Friend would help me to improve the position.

Mr. De la Bère: Most certainly. I would gladly help.

FOXES.

Mr. A. Edwards: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that a great and increasing sacrifice of time and effort is required in order to keep down foxes in Cumberland, where they are a grave menace to the food supply; and whether he is now proposing to take further action to reduce the number of these pests in Cumberland?

Mr. Ridley: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will give particulars of the special measures taken to bring about a reduction in the number of foxes?

Mr. John Morgan: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will make regulations to provide compensation for


damage done to farming land by hunting folk riding over sodden or sown fields; whether he is aware that masters of foxhounds are notifying poultry keepers that no payments for poultry killed by foxes will be made during the war; and whether he will take steps to secure compensation?

Mr. Leach: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether his attention has been drawn to the increasing irritation of farmers about the continuance of hunting during war time; the grave consequences to the food supply of the nation now involved in the damage to crops; the depredations of foxes artificially preserved and the wastages of foodstuffs in the feeding of hunters; and whether he will take steps to protect the national interests by vetoing the practice of hunting?

Mr. Leslie: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the destruction of poultry and of lambs in the lambing season by foxes, he will include, in the special steps to be taken, their destruction in the breeding coverts?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: I have received no representations by or on behalf of agriculturists, either through County War Agricultural Executive Committees or the National Farmers' Union, in regard to damage done to farming land by the continuation of hunting, and I see no justification for prohibiting the practice of hunting. I am not aware that action is being taken generally by Masters of Foxhounds Hunts to notify poultry keepers that no payment for poultry killed by foxes will be made during the war. In continuation of the replies which were given to the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Leslie) on 15th February and the hon. Member for Clay Cross (Mr. Ridley) on 22nd February, I am able to state that the Masters of Foxhounds Association are taking further steps to bring to the notice of Hunts the desirability of killing the maximum number of foxes during the remainder of the hunting season. The association have also, at my request, agreed to ask Masters to take steps to secure the destruction of foxes in the breeding coverts.

Mr. Leslie: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that these breeding coverts cover a considerable acreage of land, and surely land was meant for use and not abuse? If the Minister is pre-

pared to see me, I can produce evidence showing that destruction is going on throughout the country all the time, in regard not only to poultry but to land.

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: I shall be delighted to see the hon. Member.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Mervyn Manningham-Buller: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that in this country farmers are supplying hunting establishments with forage free to enable them to carry on fox hunting?

Mr. T. Williams: Is the Minister aware that there are many tenant farmers who dare not complain, and is he satisfied that hunting foxes is the most economic and expeditious way of disposing of them?

GRASSLAND PLOUGHING.

Brigadier-General Clifton Brown: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the adverse weather conditions recently, which have almost completely held up farmers' ploughing operations, and of the urgent need in the national interest of securing a greatly increased harvest this year, he proposes to take any special steps to see that farmers complete the programme which has been laid down?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: It is true that weather conditions this winter have been very unfavourable but the Government attaches the greatest importance to the fulfilment, in the national interest, of the programme of ploughing up two million acres in the United Kingdom in time for the coming harvest. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister stressed this when he addressed the chairmen of the County War Agricultural Executive Committees and I think my hon. Friend can rest assured that these committees, to whom has been entrusted the organisation of the programme throughout the country, fully realise the urgent nature of their responsibilities. I am confident that, as weather conditions make ploughing operations possible, farmers will use every endeavour to makeup for lost time.

Sir R. W. Smith: Will the Minister take steps to see that an adequate supply of labour is available for farmers in order to carry out the ploughing? Many men have been released from agricultural


work for a month or six weeks when the ground was under snow and at that time it was impossible to do anything. Will the Minister see whether the authorities can now release the necessary labour?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: That question has already been taken up.

Mr. Davidson: Is the Minister aware that adequate labour can be obtained if adequate wages are given?

Mr. De la Bère: Is it not a fact that the Government have told the farmers their requirements but that they have not taken any steps to enable the requirements to be carried out? You cannot make bricks without straw. It is mere words.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

HORSE BREEDING.

Sir J. Lucas: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that the majority of horses hunted at the present time are hunted from grass and are not corn fed; and, in view of the necessity of maintaining a reserve of horses for the use of the nation, he will consider making a grant for the breeding of this type of horse?

The Financial Secretary to the War Office (Sir Victor Warrender): I have been asked to reply. I have no information regarding the first part of the Question. As regards the second part, as far as can be foreseen, there will be no Army requirement for this type of horse which would justify the expenditure of public money on the horse-breeding scheme suggested.

DEPENDANTS' ALLOWANCES.

Mr. Stephen: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will consider amending the scheme for allowances of men serving with the Forces so that dependant allowances may be paid to the parents of men on service in the cases when the father is at work and earning wages, where the household income has been reduced by the man joining the Army?

Sir V. Warrender: My right hon. Friend hopes to be able to make a statement on this subject on the introduction of Army Estimates.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE.

PARCELS RATES (OVERSEAS TROOPS).

Mr. Roland Robinson: asked the Postmaster-General whether he will now reconsider the whole question of granting some concession in regard to the rate of postage on parcels sent to the troops overseas?

The Postmaster-General (Major Tryon): I regret that I can add nothing to the answer given to a Question on this subject asked by the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. T. Smith) on 30th January.

Mr. Robinson: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that a very large proportion of the money spent on comforts for the troops is used for postage, and will he reconsider the matter in view of the widespread dissatisfaction throughout the country?

Major Tryon: I do not think the hon. Gentleman is aware of the very large reductions that I made some time ago. The rates compare favourably with those in force in the last war and are based on the calculation of no profits whatever.

Mr. E. J. Williams: Does the reduction apply to parcels as well as letters?

Major Tryon: We are talking about parcels. The Question relates to parcels.

EGYPT (AIR-MAIL RATES).

Mr. Glenvil Hall: asked the Postmaster-General whether he will consider the possibility of accepting letters by airmail to members of the Forces of the Crown in Egypt at the rate of 1½d. per half-ounce, instead of at the rate of 1s.3d. per half-ounce instituted in September, 1939?

Major Tryon: I regret that owing to the limited aircraft accommodation available for the conveyance of air-mails on the Empire air routes, I am not in a position to reduce the air postage rate of 1s. 3d. per half-ounce for Egypt and other countries served by these routes even in the case of letters addressed to members of His Majesty's Forces.

Mr. Hall: Do I understand from the answer that the rate is still to be 1s. 3d.?

Major Tryon: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Hall: Could not some reduction be made? I realise that a full reduction is


not possible in the circumstances, but 1s. 3d. for half an ounce is very high.

Major Tryon: We should be delighted to lower the rate and enable more letters to be sent, if the accommodation were available. The present rate is kept up because the accommodation is not available.

TRUNK TELEPHONES (CHEAP NIGHT RATES).

Mr. Robert Gibson: asked the Postmaster-General how many 1s. telephone calls were put through from Scotland to London and from London to Scotland, respectively, for the week ending 2nd March, 1940, and for the corresponding week a year ago, respectively; and whether he has any statement to make on the success of the resumption of this service?

Major Tryon: I regret that I have no information as to the number of 1s. calls between Scotland and London, but the total number of long-distance calls from Glasgow and Edinburgh to all parts of the United Kingdom between 7 p.m. and 10 p.m. on Friday, 23rd February, 1940, was 2,035, compared with 1,895 on the corresponding Friday last year, an increase of about 7 per cent. The volume of traffic and the speed of connection resulting from the reintroduction of the 1s. call are considered to be satisfactory, having regard to war conditions. The large number of trunk calls being made after 7 p.m. shows how much the restoration of the cheap night rates is appreciated by the public.

Sir Edmund Findlay: May I ask why at this time of the year the delay is over 50 minutes between Edinburgh and London, whereas this time last year it was seldom more than three or four minutes?

Major Tryon: Because there is a war going on and we have had to hand over a large number of our lines, sometimes permanently, to the Forces. But, on the whole, I am glad to be able to tell the House that about 60 per cent. of the calls at cheap rate go through on demand.

Mr. Pickthorn (for Captain Anstruther-Gray): asked the Postmaster-General (1) the average delay in trunk calls between 7 p.m. and 10 p.m. between London and Edinburgh during the last fortnight;
(2) the average delay in trunk calls between 7 p.m. and 10 p.m. between London and Glasgow during the last fortnight?

Major Tryon: In view of the large number of calls, it is impracticable to keep records of the actual average delays. The exchanges estimate from the calls on hand the probable delays at frequent intervals each night. On calls between London and Edinburgh and between London and Glasgow the average nightly maximum estimated delay was approximately 50 minutes and 40 minutes respectively. There is no doubt that there was a strong desire, voiced on both sides of this House and in the country, for the restoration of the cheap night trunk calls. I pointed out at the time that delays would be inevitable, but I am glad to say that taking the country as a whole about 60 per cent. of the calls are being put through without delay.

Mr. De la Bère: Is not this very satisfactory?

Mr. G. Griffiths: Now there is an Under-Secretaryship for him.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

BRICKS FOR OFFICES, HARROGATE.

Captain Cunningham-Reid: asked the First Commissioner of Works whether he is aware that, in connection with the erection of Government offices at Harrogate, his Department has arranged for the necessary bricks to be supplied from Peterborough, some 150 miles away, although a company with works in Harrogate which tendered for the contract were told their tender was the lowest and that their bricks were approved by the contractors and the architect; and whether, in view of transport difficulties at present he will give the reason for this decision?

The First Commissioner of Works (Mr. Ramsbotham): The selection of bricks, subject to approval of their quality by the architect, is the responsibility of the contractors, who are, in this case, a Yorkshire firm. Harrogate bricks are being used for all work below ground level, and Selby bricks for internal partitions. I am advised that the type of bricks used for the external walls has been chosen because, in the finished work, these prove the cheapest.

Captain Cunningham-Reid: May I ask why all these bricks should not come from Yorkshire, thereby relieving congestion on the railways?

Mr. Ramsbotham: Because, as I have said, we have to give consideration to cheapness.

MINISTRY OF SUPPLY.

Mr. Ede: asked the Minister of Supply who recommended Mr. David Behar and Mr. Robert Behar for Army commissions to enable them to serve in his Department; what action has been taken on these applications; the age of the applicants; what specialist qualifications these applicants have been found to possess; and what is their present status in the Ministry of Supply?

Mr. Burgin: In both cases, Captain C. P. Davis acted as referee for the purpose of application for registration in the Officers Emergency Reserve, Mr. D. Behar being also interviewed and reported as suitable for a temporary commission by Lieut.-Colonel E. H. Clayton, R.A., an Assistant Director of Movements and Components in the Ministry of Supply. The applications were made to the War Office in the ordinary course. According to the form of application, Mr. R. Behar is 39, and Mr. D. Behar is 35. As regards the last two parts of the Question, I have come to the conclusion that these two gentlemen should not continue to serve in the Ministry of Supply, and I have so informed them.

Mr. Ede: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these two gentlemen are still wearing military uniform, and will he draw the attention of the War Office to the fact that they are not now being recommended for commissions?

Mr. Burgin: Yes, Sir.

Mr. G. Strauss: Is it not a fact that they have no qualifications whatever for the work they are supposed to be doing?

Sir Irving Albery: Is there any reason why officials of the Ministry of Supply should be given military rank?

Mr. Burgin: Perhaps my hon. Friend will await Question 54, which relates to that matter.

Mr. Ede: asked the Minister of 'Supply what position Mr. C. P. Davis holds in the Ministry of Supply; what part he took in the recommendation of

Mr. David Behar and Mr. Robert Behar for Army commissions; is he aware that Mr. Davis had previous business relationships with Mr. David and Mr. Robert Behar; and when will Mr. Davis' connection with the Ministry be ended?

Mr. Burgin: The answer to the first part of the Question is that Captain C. P. Davis holds in the Directorate of Ordnance Factories the position of liaison officer with the Directorate of Movements and Components. His work is to progress the movement of materials to and from the filling factories. The answer to the second part of the Question I have given in reply to the hon. Member's previous Question. The answer to the third and fourth parts is that I have come to the conclusion that this gentleman should not continue to serve in the Ministry of Supply, and I have so informed him. I have informed the Secretary of State for War who is considering what action is called for on his part.

Mr. Ede: asked the Minister of Supply what recent changes have been made in the arrangements for considering applications for Army commissions to be held in his Department, and in the number of posts in his Department for which an Army commission is regarded as an essential qualification?

Mr. Burgin: I have arranged to set up a standing Selection Board to consider and make recommendations to me in any case in which there appears to be ground for appointing a civilian to a post regarded as a military post in the War Office before the Ministry of Supply was established or analogous to such a post. Where it is judged advisable that the post should continue to be held by a military officer, the qualifications and suitability of civilian candidates for such posts will be examined and reported on by the Board before application is made that they should receive a Commission in His Majesty's Forces.

MINISTRY OF FOOD.

Mr. T. Williams: asked the Minister of Food the names of the salaried employés of the North Eastern Area Wholesale Meat Supply Association in South Yorkshire, the collecting centre to which they are attached and the salary they receive; and how many other persons are receiving wages or honoraria at each of the South Yorkshire centres?

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. W. S. Morrison): The staff of the North Eastern Area Wholesale Meat Supply Association, which acts as the agent of the Ministry of Food, are not employés of the Ministry but of the association, and I regret I am not in possession of detailed information as to the names and salaries of their staff. I am obtaining particulars as to the numbers of staff at the South Yorkshire centres, and I will send this information to the hon. Member as soon as available.

Oral Answers to Questions — PETROL RATIONING.

Mr. Ralph Etherton: asked the Secretary for Mines whether he can give any assurance before the next licensing period commences at Easter, that persons who incur the expenses of licensing and insuring their cars for the first half of the summer will not suffer a reduction in their petrol ration by a change in the amount of the basic unit; and whether there is any possibility of an increase in the basic petrol ration for the summer?

The Secretary for Mines (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd): While I am not in a position to give a guarantee, I can say that no change in the basic ration for private cars is contemplated at present.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

MORAY FIRTH (FISHING).

Lieut.-Colonel Heneage: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, in view of the restriction on British fishing owing to the war conditions, he will consider opening the Moray Firth, thus putting British fishermen on the same terms as the foreign fishermen?

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Captain McEwen): The question whether in present circumstances there should be any modification of the normal restrictions on trawling and certain other methods of fishing on the Scottish coast is at present under consideration. Meantime, I may say that no foreign trawlers are now working in the Moray Firth.

Lieut.-Colonel Heneage: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman bear in mind that British trawlers go out in very difficult conditions and at great danger, and that it would be very hard luck on them if this area should be closed to our trawlers?

Captain McEwen: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Davidson: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman say when we may expect a decision on this question which is under consideration?

Captain McEwen: No, Sir. I am afraid that I cannot go beyond the reply which I have given.

HOUSING (BARROWFIELD, GLASGOW).

Mr. Stephen: asked the Minister of Supply whether he will take the necessary steps for the provision of timber to enable Barrowfield housing scheme, in the Camlachie Parliamentary Division of Glasgow, to be completed, in view of the housing conditions in this part of Glasgow?

Captain McEwen: I have been asked to reply. The Department of Health are calling for returns from local authorities with regard to the present stage of house building to enable them to decide the basis of the distribution of a small supply of timber which it is hoped will become available after 31st March, and the case of the Barrowfield scheme will be considered. Meantime the Corporation of Glasgow are preparing revised plans in consultation with the Department of Health for Scotland for the completion of houses by methods which will reduce to a minimum the amount of timber required.

Mr. Stephen: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware of the terrible housing conditions in this part of the city, and will he see to it that this scheme is completed?

Captain McEwen: Yes, certainly, Sir, within the limits of the reply that I have given.

Mr. Buchanan: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that in this same city, where timber is denied for absolutely necessary housing such as this, timber is being used for luxury building, which is not required, and what steps does he intend to take?

Captain McEwen: I am not aware that that is the case.

Mr. Buchanan: Has the hon. and gallant Gentleman ever visited the city of Glasgow and seen luxury building going up in the centre of the city and timber being used, whereas the erection of working-class houses is being denied?

Oral Answers to Questions — COST-OF-LIVING INDEX.

Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte: asked the Minister of Labour whether, in calculating the cost-of-living figures, any allowance is made for the reduction in quantities consumed owing to rationing and the substitution of cheaper articles, such as margarine for butter, due to the same cause?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Assheton): The official cost-of-living index number is designed to measure the average percentage changes in the retail prices of a fixed list of commodities and services. The figures do not purport to reflect changes in expenditure due to alterations in the quantities of different commodities actually consumed by working-class households, as to which comprehensive statistics are not available.

Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte: May we take it that these figures are absolutely worthless for comparison with those we had before the war?

Mr. Assheton: No, Sir.

Mr. T. Williams: Are we to understand from the answer that if working-class consumers consume inferior food, then the cost-of-living index should go down?

Mr. Thorne: Will the hon. Member send his wife to the shops to see the prices that she will have to pay?

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION.

EVACUATED CHILDREN, WALES.

Mr. James Griffiths: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education whether he will give details of the arrangements by which children who held free places in secondary schools in evacuation areas and who are evacuated under private arrangements can secure free places in secondary schools in Wales?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education (Mr. Kenneth Lindsay): In Administrative Memorandum 205, issued by the Board in November last, authorities were urged to see that no child is deprived of education pending the settlement of financial and other problems connected with official and unofficial evacuation. The report of the Committee of Local Education Authorities, recently

issued by the Board, makes suggestions for payment by the authority responsible for the special place to the receiving authority. As regards pupils who hold free places outside the authority's arrangements, and who have dispersed independently, it is hoped that the school awarding the free place will find it possible to make suitable arrangements with the school to which the pupil has been admitted in the receiving area.

Mr. Griffiths: Will the hon. Gentleman expedite these arrangements in the reception areas?

Mr. Lindsay: I should be very glad to be informed of any particular delays.

COLONIAL DEVELOPMENT (INSTRUCTION).

Sir J. Lucas: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education whether he will endeavour to obtain an extension of instruction in the schools on Britain's work for Colonial development and on her future responsibilities, in view of the proposed financial aid to be granted and as an appreciation of the way in which the Empire rallies to the aid of the Mother Country in time of trouble?

Mr. Lindsay: In consultation with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies, we are considering how the teaching in the schools may be made more alive and imaginative on this question and may contribute to a fuller understanding of the Empire, its opportunities and its problems.

Oral Answers to Questions — INTERNMENT CAMPS.

Mr. G. Strauss: asked the Secretary of State for War whether in view of the numerous escapes from the internment camps, he is satisfied with the arrangements for the confinement of German prisoners of war in this country?

Sir V. Warrender: The escapes have in all cases been made by captured merchant seamen who were interned in camps for interned civilians. Weaknesses in the construction of these camps are being remedied. As I stated in answer to a Question by the hon. Member for Cumberland, North (Mr. W. Roberts) on 15th February last, it is intended to have separate camps for merchant seamen.

Sir Gifford Fox: asked the Secretary of State for War the nature of the rations


now supplied to German interned prisoners in this country; and how the quantities of food rationed to the civil population of this country compare with the quantities of the same commodities issued to the prisoners?

Sir V. Warrender: Interned German civilians who are rationed in kind are supplied with rations on a scale approved by the medical authorities as suitable for the conditions under which they are living. Butter and bacon are not issued. The sugar ration is at present two ounces a week greater than that of the civil population, but no jam is issued. It is proposed to reduce the sugar ration to the normal level, and to provide jam or syrup. When meat is rationed, the internees will receive 1½ lb. a week each.

Oral Answers to Questions — LORD HANKEY (DUTIES).

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Prime Minister whether he has any further statement to make as to the duties imposed on Lord Hankey as a Member of the War Cabinet; whether he has any special functions; and whether he is associated with the work of any particular Ministry?

The Prime Minister (Mr. Chamberlain): No, Sir. The duties of my right hon. and Noble Friend were outlined by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury in the course of the Debate on 7th February last, and I have nothing to add to that statement.

Mr. Shinwell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I put down this Question because of the speech delivered by his Noble Friend in another place the other day? Has the right hon. Gentleman read that speech? If he has, does he not regard it as rather disquieting?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir.

Mr. Shinwell: Will he take a little time and look at the speech, and analyse it, and tell us what he thinks about it?

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF SUPPLY.

HARDWOOD.

Captain Alan Graham: asked the Minister of Supply whether, in view of the stocks of hardwoods at present available, and the need to prevent the dislocation of those trades concerned in the

building industry, he will allow some relaxation of the present control, in order to enable private firms and individuals to proceed with building works and thus assist in the prevention of further unemployment in this industry?

The Minister of Supply (Mr. Burgin): Whenever hardwood only is required for the completion of a building and supplies are available they are released on application to the Timber Control, but the supplies of hardwood are not such as would permit of large quantities being spared for this purpose.

Mr. Buchanan: Would not the right hon. Gentleman give special regard to the position of building in Scotland, and see whether he can release some timber for that purpose?

Mr. Burgin: Yes, Sir, I have that subject under consideration.

Mr. Levy: As timber is so short, has my right hon. Friend considered the advisability of the use of substitutes wherever possible?

Mr. Burgin: Yes, Sir, there is a special committee which advises on substitutes.

Mr. Levy: Are they being used?

ARCHITECTS AND SURVEYORS.

Sir Frank Sanderson: asked the Minister of Supply whether he is aware of the dissatisfaction and distress among architects and surveyors because, at the commencement of the war, they were scheduled as a reserved occupation and barred from finding other work, and since that time they have been removed from the reserved list and have lost the only work open to them; and will he consider using the services of members of these professions on some of the official work now in progress so as in some degree to alleviate the distress?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply (Colonel Llewellin): Unemployment is not, of course, the province of the Ministry of Supply, but I have heard of the existence of distress amongst architects and surveyors. I do not think, however, that it is due to the cause mentioned, but to the decline in civil building since the war broke out. It is not the case that surveyors have been removed from the Schedule of Reserved Occupations. With regard to


the second part of the Question, there has been some increase in the numbers of architects and surveyors temporarily employed in connection with building work for the Ministry of Supply, and consideration is at present being given to the question of making more extended use of the services of these professional men.

Mr. R. Gibson: Does the second part of the answer apply to Scotland?

Colonel Llewellin: Where we are building factories in Scotland, it certainly applies equally to Scotland.

WASTE PRODUCTS, SALVAGE (LONDON).

Lieut.-Colonel Heneage: asked the Minister of Supply how many London boroughs have made arrangements for saving waste products for feeding-stuffs, and how many have not done so; and will he give the names of those who have not done so?

Mr. Burgin: None of the 28 Metropolitan borough councils has made arrangements for salving kitchen waste for pig feeding, but, as my hon. Friend is no doubt aware, the Central London area is covered by contractors who collect from hotels, restaurants, etc., and sell the kitchen waste to pig keepers.

Lieut.-Colonel Heneage: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that all that is possible is saved by the contractors? If not, will he indicate what steps he will take?

Mr. Burgin: No, Sir, I am not yet satisfied; but the publicity that is being given to this matter, and the steps that are being taken by the Controller of Salvage are already resulting in a visible improvement, and I propose to go on improving improvement.

Lieut.-Colonel Heneage: Can my right hon. Friend assure me that the local authorities are fully aware of the shortage of feeding-stuffs in the country and of the fact that it is their duty to remedy that shortage?

Mr. Burgin: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Ammon: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this will impose very great expense on the borough councils?

Mr. Burgin: Yes, Sir. I am also aware that these substances are badly wanted by the State for the prosecution of the war.

Mr. Ammon: Then why do you not help the authorities to do the work?

Miss Rathbone: Is it not time that—whoever pays for it—these arrangements should be made compulsory? Has not the voluntary principle gone on for a long time with too little results?

ARMED FORCES (COMFORTS).

Miss Wilkinson: asked the Minister of Supply who are the voluntary societies prepared to give free wool for knitting; and whether anyone who is willing to knit for the Forces may get this free wool?

Mr. Burgin: I understand that the voluntary bodies make their own arrangements, and that in a number of cases wool is purchased in bulk and distributed, sometimes free of charge, to responsible voluntary workers who return made-up comforts. I am afraid, however, that I cannot give more than this general picture of the arrangements; but I might draw the attention of the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary of the War Office to a Question asked by the hon. Member for South West St. Pancras (Sir G. Mitcheson) on 6th February, in which he referred to the co-ordinating work of the Director-General of Voluntary Organisations.

Miss Wilkinson: If the right hon. Gentleman makes statements referring me to voluntary societies, ought he not to be prepared to give the names of the societies? I cannot discover what societies are doing this work. Is he not aware that his own Director of Supply has asked that gloves, for example, should be knitted, because there is not the necessary knitting machinery available for them? If he wants something definite done, ought he not to make it possible for people to do it?

Mr. Burgin: I referred the hon. Lady myself to the highest possible source.

Sir Nairne Stewart Sandeman: Are there not thousands of people longing to knit for men at the front who connot get wool, or cannot afford to pay for it?

Mr. Burgin: About 340 tons a week of this wool is being made available. That


is as much as the spinning machinery can at present consume.

Miss Wilkinson: But is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that much of the wool is wasted, because it is being bought by people who can afford to knit anything they like, while the Director has asked that this specific job should be done? Cannot wool be made available for that purpose?

TIMBER IMPORTS.

Captain Graham: asked the Minister of Supply whether, in order to add to the stocks of soft woods available for building purposes in this country, he has considered the importation of pinus halepensis timber from Cyprus, thus assisting a British Colony, from which also there is the safe Mediterranean sea route?

Mr. Burgin: Yes, Sir, but I understand that after meeting British requirements nearer Cyprus there is no surplus for export to this country.

Mr. McEntee: asked the Minister of Supply what quantities of timber have been purchased by the Government, or at the Government's request, in foreign countries or in the Dominions, before or since the outbreak of war, which have not been shipped to this country; and what steps are being taken to bring this timber here?

Mr. Burgin: A considerable quantity of timber purchased by the Government is now waiting shipment, but it is not in the public interest to give the exact figures. It will be lifted as rapidly as possible. I am in constant touch with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Shipping with regard to the provision of the necessary ships.

ROYAL ORDNANCE FACTORY (LABOUR, AGE-LIMIT).

Mr. Gordon Macdonald: asked the Minister of Supply whether he has now removed the question of any upper age-limit in the recruitment of labour at the Royal Ordnance Factory of which he has been informed, leaving fitness to be the only consideration?

Colonel Llewellin: No absolute upper age-limit for entry of labour at this factory has at any time been laid down. The present practice is to treat industrial

suitability as the governing consideration and for persons who are physically fit for the work required not to be excluded on grounds of age.

Oral Answers to Questions — ENEMY ALIENS (WILHELM SOLF).

Sir G. Fox: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department who vouched for the reliability of enemy alien Wilhelm Solf, who was convicted of photographing a crashed aeroplane near Abingdon; with whom he was living, and whether that person is in any way connected with Government work; and whether any investigation is to be made into the action and attitude of those persons who, when the photographs in question were taken, were present and helped it being done?

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peake): I do not think it would be right for me to publish the names of persons who give information about individual aliens but I can assure my hon. Friend that those who gave information about Solf were persons of standing and reliability who were able from personal knowledge of Solf and his family to testify as to his attitude to this country. Solf was living in the house of Mr. Rowse, who, I am informed, is the Controller of machine tools under the Ministry of Supply. As regards the last part of the Question, action has already been taken; Miss Rowse who accompanied Solf and abetted him in taking the photograph intended for the family collection was bound over in her own recognizances for a period of one year.

Mr. Thurtle: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the Home Office has received any apology from the sponsors of this particular individual?

Mr. Peake: No, Sir, we have not had any communication from the sponsors of this particular man, but I might add, however, that, while the photographs in question have no military value, we are deeply concerned at the reckless and foolish disregard of the special restrictions upon aliens shown by this undergraduate?

Captain Graham: Is not my hon. Friend aware that even only moderately informed people knew perfectly well that Mr. Wilhelm Solf's father was a most


notorious Anglophobe—Dr. Solf, a President of the German Kolonial Bund and Ambassador to Japan—and surely should not this have made the Home Office very suspicious?

Mr. Peake: Our information on that point and of those who stood sponsor for him is precisely to the contrary.

Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte: Cannot the Government take some action against the people who vouched for this man?

Mr. Marcus Samuel: Can my hon. Friend say how the name Rice is spelt?

Mr. Peake: It is spelt R-o-w-s-e.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

RAILWAY TRAFFIC, SCOTLAND (BREAD).

Mr. R. Gibson: asked the Minister of Transport what quantity of bread was transported by rail from Glasgow on each day, respectively, of the week ending Saturday,2nd March, 1940; what rolling stock, respectively, was required for its transport; into what counties of Scotland it was so transported; what quantities were so transported to Greenock, Edinburgh, Dundee, Aberdeen, Perth, Oban and Inverness, respectively; and what proposals he has to make, in conjunction with other Government Departments, to relieve the railways of this traffic during the war-time emergency?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Bernays): I am advised that the amount of traffic in question is not so substantial as to warrant interference with the normal commercial and somewhat specialised system of distribution. The detailed information for which the hon. and learned Member asks could not be obtained without an expenditure of time and money which my right hon. and gallant Friend could not regard as justified in war-time?

Mr. Gibson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that bread is sent as far north as Sutherlandshire, and that special bread trains run from Glasgow to Dundee, and that Glasgow bread goes as far south as Galloway; and can he say, approximately, what the amount of rolling stock is involved in this traffic?

Mr. Bernays: I cannot say without notice. If the hon. and learned Gentleman has a case to put to me on this matter, I shall be very glad to consider it.

Mr. Buchanan: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is a big Co-operative bakery in Gorbals, Glasgow, and will he do nothing to interfere with it, as there is enough poverty in Gorbals already?

CROSS-CHANNEL SERVICES.

Commander King-Hall: asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that an occasion recently occurred in which more than 100 passengers from London to Paris were obliged to embark upon the cross-Channel packet at 11 p.m., although it was known the vessel would not sail till 9 a.m.; and that, in view of the fact that there were only six cabins in the vessel and very limited accommodation in the saloons, many passengers were obliged either to lie on, or walk the deck all night; and why the passengers were not allowed to spend the night at an hotel and embark in the morning?

Mr. Bernays: My attention has not been called to the incident to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers, but if he will furnish me with further particulars, including the date, I will make inquiries and will let him know the result as soon as possible.

Commander King-Hall: While thanking my hon. Friend for his reply to my Question, may I ask him whether he is aware that on the same occasion 100 passengers who had left London en route for Marseilles at the same time as those who had left London en route for Paris were allowed to spend the night on shore and pass on board at eight o'clock the next morning; and will he broaden the scope of his investigation to see whether he can improve the facilities between this country and France?

Mr. Bernays: No, Sir, I am not aware of the incident to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers, but I may add that my right hon. and gallant Friend is anxious as far as practicable under wartime conditions to improve conditions of travel.

Mr. Thurtle: Will the Minister see that civilians suffer no discomfort whatsoever during the war?

Commander King-Hall: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that among those who suffered discomfort was a large number of officers and men returning from the B.E.F. on leave from France?

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA (BRITISH EMBASSY).

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the distance of our Embassy from the now established headquarters of the Chinese Government, adequate steps are being taken to safeguard the trade position of this country in China immediately following the cessation of hostilities?

Mr. Butler: As I informed my hon. Friend on 20th February, His Majesty's Ambassador spends a considerable time at Chungking where he now is. There is a permanent office of His Majesty's Embassy in Chungking through which the Ambassador maintains contact with the Chinese Government on all matters affecting British trade interests when he is at Shanghai or elsewhere.

Mr. De la Bère: Is it not a fact that our Embassy is 1,800 miles distant from the Chinese headquarters and is there anyone from our Embassy at the new headquarters of sufficient status to ensure that there will be a satisfactory disposal of these important problems?

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir. Our Ambassador is there himself at present, and has been there since the beginning of the year. When he is not there somebody else of sufficient status is there to carry on negotiations.

Mr. Davidson: Is it not a fact that our policy is 1,800 miles away from China?

Mr. Butler: No, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — VENEREAL DISEASE.

Mr. David Adams: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware of the disappointment of many local authorities that circular No. 1956, of the Ministry of Health, on venereal disease, contains no provision for Treasury assistance to local authorities without which adequate treatment facilities, public enlightenment and guidance to young people on sex behaviour will be seriously affected; and whether he will reconsider

the matter as one of urgency so that the health, social and financial wastage following the last war should not be repeated?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Horsbrugh): I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which my right hon. Friend gave on 28th February to a similar Question by the hon. Member for Stratford (Mr. Groves).

Mr. Adams: Will the hon. Lady note that local authorities are not prepared to take action in this matter unless they receive Treasury assistance?

Miss Horsbrugh: Yes, Sir, I will ask my right hon. Friend to take note of what the hon. Gentleman has said.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. Arthur Greenwood: May I ask the Prime Minister for what purpose it is proposed to suspend the Eleven O'clock Rule?

The Prime Minister: It is necessary to conclude the Committee stage of the Old Age Pensions Bill to-day in view of the desirability of passing the Bill into law by Easter. Conversations have taken place through the usual channels and I am glad to say agreement has been reached with regard to the progress of the Bill as follows:
Amendments to Clauses 10 and 11 and as many as possible of the Amendments to remaining Clauses of the Bill should be reserved for consideration at a later stage. We should enter upon consideration of the Second Schedule not later than 5 o'clock which will give time for discussion of the important issues arising on this Schedule. I hope this arrangement will commend itself to hon. Members in all parts of the House and that they will be willing to co-operate in carrying it out.

Mr. Greenwood:: I must say that nobody can accuse my right hon. and hon. Friends on this side of being guilty of any fractious opposition on this stage. We have acted with commendable restraint but in view of the very widespread indignation in the country and, in the opinion of my hon. Friends on this side, we have had, naturally, to devote as much time as the House would permit to discussion of the household means test in its realistic aspects. For what we have


done in that matter we have no apologies to make. The principle, of course, has now been settled against us but it does not alter our opinion about it and our views now are stronger than they were when we entered into discussions on the Bill, not merely because of the extension of the principle in the Bill, but because it may create another precedent for the extension of the household means test to soldiers' dependants.
On the other hand, as has been said in the Debates, far be it from us to deny any old man or woman even a meagre fraction and, therefore, we would not desire to take steps to prevent the Government from passing the Bill before Easter. The reason we are entering into a very difficult arrangement from our point of view is because we believe that on Schedule 2, to which we have a series of Amendments designed to mitigate the harshness of the household means test, we should have a discussion at a reasonable hour of the day and if under the arrangement suggested by the Prime Minister we might have a discussion on the Second Schedule, with the right to express our views freely and vote in the Division Lobby, then I say that although this is a rather hard bargain for us and, perhaps, for the Government, we are prepared to accept the arrangement.

Sir Archibald Sinclair: My hon. Friends also feel strongly about this Bill. We have a number of Amendments down to those Clauses on which it is proposed to omit discussion. We agree, however, with the proposal which the Prime Minister has made, and which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) has supported, but we have agreed on the understanding that these Amendments which are not going to be discussed on the Committee stage, should have, so far as possible, facilities for discussion on the Report stage. We hope that this general feeling may come to your knowledge, Mr. Speaker, and may influence your choice of Members when we come to that stage of the Bill.

Mr. Davidson: Having put down one or two Amendments myself to Clause 10 on behalf of the Scottish local authorities, I think this arrangement through the usual channels is a perfect disgrace and that the Opposition ought not to be stultified

by any threats of the Government in any way or shape.

Ordered,

"That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

Orders of the Day — OLD AGE AND WIDOWS' PENSIONS BILL.

Considered in Committee [Progress, 1st March].

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 10.—(Provision for dealing with special cases.)

The Chairman: I take it that after the arrangement which has been arrived at it will only be necessary for me to call the Amendments to this Clause but that they will not be moved at this stage. I have no intimation from hon. Members who have Amendments on the Paper that they do not wish to move; therefore, I must call them all.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

3.43 p.m.

Mr. Batey: I want to oppose this Clause. In my opinion it is one of the worst in the Bill. Before the introduction of this Measure no Member of the House would have believed that a Government would have come forward with a Clause giving power to officers of the Board to pay money to someone other than the applicant. But bad as this is, it is even worse to give an officer of the Board power to order an applicant into the workhouse. This is a power which ought not to be in the hands of any officer, I do not care how good he may be. It means that if an old man or old woman is living alone an officer may come to the conclusion that it is better they should go into the workhouse. I know that he has to get the sanction of the tribunal, but that is quite an easy thing to do once the officer has made his report. I take it that this will include the cases mentioned by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 21st February. He said:
The Assistance Board have already been gathering a certain amount of material in preparation for what they will have to do. Since I like to take cases and see what it really means, I sent a message to the authorities saying that I should like cases to be given to me to see how they would be dealt with. I will give three instances.
Here is a case of a woman who is a pensioner, aged 72. She is bedridden, with a daughter of 49 who looks after her. She lives, I think, in the Middlesex area, and the rent is 13s. 4d. The Board, applying the

present regulations, and remembering that we undertake that, under the new procedure, there is to be no worse treatment than those regulations, would give in addition to her 10s. pension, 23s. 6d. in summer and25s. 6d. in winter. What form of adddition to the flat rate will do that?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st February, 1940; col. 1492, Vol. 357.]
That is just the kind of case where an officer would not give this money but would say that that old woman would be better off in the workhouse hospital, and he has the power, provided he gets the sanction of the appeal tribunal to order that old woman into the workhouse. In my opinion, once this Clause is passed, we shall find a lot of old men and old women ordered to the workhouse, and unless they go there their supplementary pension will not be paid. This is a power which should not be given to any one man and because it is dangerous I am strongly opposed to the Clause.

3.46 p.m.

Mr. Ellis Smith (Stoke): There are one or two very important points raised in this Clause. In the first place it says:
Where an officer of the Assistance Board, or on appeal, the appeal tribunal, is of opinion….the officer or tribunal may determine
and in Sub-section (2) it says:
An applicant who is aggrieved by any such determination as aforesaid made in his case by an officer of the Board may, without leave, appeal to the appeal tribunal.
My point is that we are dealing with people of 65 years of age, many of whom have spent their lifetime in the mines or in transport or in other industries, who have had no experience whatever of public life. They are very nervous, and these are the people who will have to go before the Assistance Board. I think the Minister should agree before the Report stage that a trade union representative or a friend of the aggrieved person, or some other representative, should be allowed to state their case before the appeal tribunal. I hope the Minister will agree that some recognised representative shall be allowed to go with them to the appeal tribunal and if necessary state their case.

Mr. A. Jenkins: I should like to make an appeal to the Minister—

Mr. J. J. Davidson: May I ask your guidance, Sir Dennis? In the event of any of the


Amendments of hon. Members being discussed now will it debar these Amendments from being called at a later stage?

The Chairman: There is no later stage with which I am concerned. The next stage will be the Report stage, and as hon. Members know, that is not a matter for me.

3.51 p.m.

Mr. Jenkins: There is one matter arising out of this Clause to which I want to refer. There would appear to be a real danger of getting a quarrel between the public assistance committees and the officers of the Assistance Board. The position of the old persons will be extremely difficult. Whereas it might well be possible to keep these old people in comfortable little homes with an expenditure of about £1 a week for each person, under the arrangement contemplated in the Clause there is a real danger that many of them will be sent to institutions where the cost will be substantially above £1 a week. In the Debates last week, we discussed the question of welfare. With the slightest bit of care many of these old people might have their homes made comfortable for them and might recover from their ill health, but in the circumstances that exist in many parts of the country, the old people will have no representation before the tribunals or the public assistance committees. It seems to me that there is a real danger of making the position extremely difficult for them and causing greater expense to the community. I hope this matter will be considered at a later stage of the Bill.

3.53 p.m.

Mr. Silverman: In opposing this Clause, I do not want to refer to any of the Amendments on the Order Paper. I want simply to observe that the Committee is committing a dereliction of its plain duty by proposing—if it does propose—to accept this Clause without discussion. I understand that the only reason it is proposed that this Clause and the next Clause should be accepted without any discussion of the Amendments on the Order Paper is that there is some danger that, if too much time is taken on these Clauses, the Bill may be withdrawn or suspended in some sort of way. I do not know what that kind of thing is called

in the Committee, but outside it is called blackmail. Apparently, the suggestion made from Government sources is that the Government are giving some small portion of the things which the whole country desires to be given largely and generously, and that unless hon. Members on this side are prepared to accept the crumb which they are being offered from the rich man's table, without asking too many questions about what is left on the table, then the Government will withdraw the Bill.

The Chairman: I did not stop the hon. Member when he first started to make his protest, but I would point out to him that that is not a proper subject for debate now.

Mr. Silverman: I am very anxious not to get outside the Rules of Order. I am explaining the reasons which move me, and which I think ought to move the Committee, not to accept this Clause, at this time, in this way. I oppose the Clause because I feel bound in honour not to yield to blackmail. I have been brought up to believe that not merely the blackmailers but those who yield to black mail are equally dishonourable, and I do not intend to submit to that kind of aspersion. I have always said that this Bill is of no value. When I say the Bill is of no value, I mean that, in my opinion, it is of no value, and I do not regard a threat to withdraw something that is of no value as a threat which need worry me in the least. Yesterday, I had an opportunity of addressing a representative meeting in my constituency. In the whole course of my political endeavours, I have never seen more indignation—

The Chairman: I must remind the hon. Member that the Question before the Committee is "That Clause 10 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Silverman: I am endeavouring to explain to the best of my very moderate ability why I think Clause 10 ought not to stand part of the Bill at this time. I think my reason is a good one. I am not dealing with the merits, the ways in which the Clause might be improved, or the Amendments on the Order Paper. I do not want to limit the rights of other people or interfere with them in any way. What I am saying is that Clause 10 has not been discussed, and it has not been discussed because of certain


circumstances which I am trying to describe. The failure to discuss the Clause has arisen out of inadequate reasons. The Clause ought not to be accepted. Yesterday, I had an opportunity of addressing a very representative meeting of my constituents on this very matter. I told them—what I sincerely believe—that I had never been more proud of the Parliamentary Labour party than I was during last week in the fight that it made against this miserable proposal.

The Chairman: The hon. Member is apparently persisting in discussing the Bill. He is now referring to matters which took place last week. Last week, Clause 10, which is now before the Committee, was not debated. What the hon. Member is now saying is not relevant to the Question before the Committee.

Mr. Silverman: I promised my constituents that the struggle which had been maintained so far would be maintained to-day. The reasons which led us to oppose and to criticise various proposals in the Bill last week are much the same as those which, on an adequate examination, would have led us to oppose or seek to amend this Clause. It seems to me that we should be betraying a trust reposed in us if we were, by reason of the dishonourable threat from the Government, to allow ourselves to be deflected from the criticisms which otherwise we would have felt bound to make. One has only to look at the Order Paper to see how many criticisms we would have felt bound to make on this Clause, and I say that we have no right to accept this Clause with our proposals to amend it un-examined, unless the reasons for leaving the Clause unexamined are adequate ones. I maintain that they are not adequate reasons. I think that my hon. Friends are allowing themselves to be deceived in a way in which the Government would frequently like to deceive them—namely, by taking some small part of a proposal and then, by a technique that is becoming almost infamous—certainly notorious—saying, "There is your crumb and unless you accept it with becoming humility and gratitude, we will withdraw it." For my part, I regard that as a dastardly and dishonourable thing to do, and I will have no part or lot in it.

3.58 p.m.

Mr. Aneurin Bevan: I should like to put a question to the

Minister. I understand we are not discussing the Clause as a whole in the absence of Amendments. In the arrangement which apparently has been made, is it the intention of the Minister at a later stage to make any concession on any of the points raised in the Amendments on the Order Paper? It would be useful to us to know whether the right hon. Gentleman has considered the Amendments and thinks that there are some points in them which would commend themselves to him. Is he considering, at a later stage of the Bill, making any Amendments in the Clause on the lines of some of the Amendments on the Order Paper?

3.59 p.m.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Elliot): I am anxious to keep very closely to the arrangement which has been made, but it might be convenient to hon. Members if I told them that, of course, I have given the closest attention to the Amendments, and that on some of them, I hope, we shall be able to meet the Opposition—as, for instance, on the point raised by the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. E.Smith). This naturally will arise on the Report stage. The Report stage is not a mere formality, and I hope very much that we shall be able to meet some of the points which are raised by hon. Members in these Amendments, including that referred to by the Hon. Member for Stoke.

4.0 p.m.

Mr. Bevan: If the Minister intends to make any concessions on these Amendments during the Report stage he should indicate, for the convenience of the Committee, at the earliest possible moment, what those concessions are to be? Otherwise, we shall be debating the whole Clause on the assumption that not one of these Amendments is to be conceded and that no consideration is to be given to any of the points raised in them. Then at the end of the Debate we shall be told that some of our speeches have been quite beside the mark, because certain concessions are to be made. Surely the businesslike procedure would be to let us know beforehand what the Minister proposes to do. It would then be possible for hon. Members to economise the time of the Committee and to make their speeches more relevant by directing them to useful points.
In this case we are following an unusual procedure. It is usual to discuss


first the Amendments to a Clause, and to see whether any of those Amendments are accepted, and afterwards to discuss the Clause as a whole. It is then possible to discuss the Clause with full knowledge of what has happened to the Amendments. Under this extraordinary procedure, we do not know what is to happen to these Amendments and we do not know what portions of the Clause will emerge finally from these discussions. If the Minister were to tell us now, in detail, the Amendments which the Government intended to accept, we might then feel that the Clause could be added to the Bill without further discussion. If, on the other hand, there are portions of the Clause as yet unamended, which may be amended later, it places difficulties in the way of those who wish to discuss it. I submit that a statement by the Minister, such as I have suggested, would facilitate progress.

4.4 p.m.

Mr. E. J. Williams: I understand the Minister has indicated that he will consider the point which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke (Mr. E. Smith). That point is contained in an Amendment on the Paper to which my name is attached, and I am pleased to learn that the Minister is prepared to consider it, but I would put this further point to him. This morning I have had a communication from the clerk to the public assistance committee of Glamorgan, in which he emphasises the necessity of an old age pensioner having someone to accompany him or her at the tribunal. He also stresses the point that the public assistance committee should be taken into consultation before any old age pensioner is sent to an institution. The Minister will appreciate that in this matter there must be an overlapping of functions between the Board and the public assistance committee. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will carefully consider those two points and during the Report stage, I presume, he will let us have an Amendment dealing with this matter which we shall be able to accept.

4.5 p.m.

Mr. Neil Maclean: My name is attached to an Amendment which seeks to delete Sub-section (3) of this Clause, and I wish to draw attention to the fact that the Sub-section, if retained in the Bill, would impose a

penalty, not only on the old age pensioner, but also on the local authority. This Sub-section deals with the case of a pensioner who has to go into an institution for one cause or another, but it refers, mainly, I take it, to those who are being treated for mental disease. In a case of that kind, the individual concerned, prior to his mental derangement, will have been receiving an old age pension with in all probability a supplementation. Both the old age pension and the supplementary pension will now be taken from that individual, and the burden of his maintenance will be cast entirely on the ratepayers. I wish to know from the Minister whether, in the arrangement that has been made between the two Front Benches concerning the discussion of this Clause, any consideration has been given to that point. As a representative of Glasgow, the right hon. Gentleman knows that the Glasgow authority is being severely handicapped by the large number of old age pensioners whose resources are being supplemented from the local rates. Others are going into homes for the aged. They are people who have no mental derangement but they are going into these municipal homes with the result that they lose the pension and the entire cost falls upon the Glasgow authority. Are they to be considered and brought back into the old age pensions scheme?

Sir Patrick Hannon: On a point of Order. Is it not the case that an arrangement has been arrived at whereby the discussion of the Amendments to this Clause was to be postponed to a later stage; and are we not now discussing in detail the very Amendments the consideration of which we agreed to suspend?

The Chairman: As Chairman of the Committee I have nothing to do with any arrangement which may have been made between parties or groups of hon. Members in the Committee. I understand that some arrangement has been made, and it was referred to by the Prime Minister in the House earlier to-day. On this Clause being called in Committee I called a number of Amendments which appear on the Paper, as I was bound to do, because I received no indication from the hon. Members concerned that they were not to be moved. They were not moved, and that is all I had to do in the matter.

4.8 p.m.

Mr. Bevan: I understand that an arrangement has been made, and I confess at the outset—

The Chairman: We cannot discuss that arrangement except in so far as it is raised in relation to this Clause. There is a Question before the Committee, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," and the discussion must be confined to that Question.

Mr. Bevan: There is a point which arises on that Question and on which I am endeavouring to get an answer from the Minister. Despite what has been said on this side of the Committee about an arrangement, hon. Members have not yet degenerated into the position of being lay figures to be moved about in every conceivable way, as a result of arrangements made behind the Speaker's Chair. What I want to know is, why should we part with this Clause at this time unless we are given by the Minister an indication of what concessions, if any, he proposes to make. We may have an opportunity of discussing these matters on the Report stage, but, as everybody knows, the opportunities for discussion on a Report stage are by no means as good as they are in Committee. We are very much in the hands of Mr. Speaker on the Report stage and I should be very surprised to learn that Mr. Speaker's prerogative has been pre-empted by any arrangement made between the parties. Therefore, we shall be much more limited in our discussion on the Report stage than we are now.
A number of very important points arise on this Clause. There is, for example, the term "personal friend" which appears in the Amendments to which the Minister has referred. It is asked that a personal friend of an applicant should have the right to appear before the tribunal. Would a representative appointed by the old age pensioners' organisation be considered a personal friend? That is an example of the points which arise. We have been very much frightened by this Bill and one of the reasons is that the relationship between the officer of the Board and the old age pensioner may place the latter at a disadvantage because he can no longer have access to any elected representative. He is being deprived of a status which he enjoys at the moment and he is being

deprived also of the opportunity of securing advice and assistance from a person over whom he has some control. There is no control at all over the officer of the Board. The tribunal has the power to decide whether any person shall be heard on behalf of the old age pensioner, but the pensioner has no right to say that a person should appear on his behalf. If the Minister told us that an old age pensioner would have the right to say that a person should appear with him and for him, that would satisfy us with regard to that particular Amendment. It would then appear that the individual himself would have that right. If the tribunal itself and not the old age pensioner is to have the right to decide, I can foresee difficulties arising throughout the country. If, on the other hand, the old age pensioner had the right to decide then our position would be very largely met. We do not want the old age pensioner to be put at a disadvantage in being made to feel that he has not had fair play at the hands of the tribunal because his case has not been properly presented. There is an old axiom to the effect that not only should justice be done, but that it should be seen to be done. It will not be seen to be done in this case, unless the old age pensioner receives from the tribunal the consideration which he thinks he ought to have and which he would have received if he had had a representative there on his behalf.
Another very important point arises between the local authority and the Board. This Clause is largely concerned with the relationship between the two. It is true that before the Board can say that a person is unfit to receive an old age pension, or that a person should be handed over to the public assistance authority, notice has to be served on the public assistance authority. But the tribunal is the tribunal of the Board. Where is the appeal tribunal? If a conflict of interest arises between the public assistance authority and the Board, is the tribunal of the Board to have the last voice in determining who shall be chargeable to the public assistance authority? According to Clause 10, the answer is, "yes." There may be words in another part of the Bill which meet that point. There are Amendments on the Paper dealing with it. Are we to have any satisfaction on that matter? There is very bad feeling between the public


assistance authorities and the Board and although, under the 1934 Act, there is an appeal outside the Board, under this Bill as far as I understand, the tribunal of the Board itself, a part of the machinery of the Board, will be able to decide whether an old age pensioner is to be chargeable to the Board or to the rates. That seems an inequitable proposal. Surely it is a novel departure in British constitutional practice that, where there is a conflict between two public authorities, one of those authorities should have power to decide the issue.
It seems to me that we are entitled to an explanation from the Minister on those points before we part with the Clause in the Committee stage. If we are not to have that satisfaction it is quite clear that when we come to the Report stage we shall be very much in the hands of Mr. Speaker on the question of whether Amendments are to be discussed or not. I am not raising this point of Order to be awkward. I would say to hon. Members on this side of the Committee that we cannot assume that Bills, placed before the House by Parliamentary draftsmen and the Government, are water-tight in all respects. Very often they contain absurdities of all kinds and it is the duty of the Committee to examine them in order that they may be put into proper shape. The Committee stage would be greatly facilitated if we could have at this stage, and not at some subsequent stage, a statement from the Minister about how he regards these matters. Do not let the right hon. Gentleman frown so sullenly. I imagine he is frowning because of what he imagines is "undisciplined conduct" in connection with this Bill. Our function however is not to be Storm Troopers and say "Heil" whenever an arrangement is made, because we have obligations to our constituencies and we cannot barter them away. I for one do not propose—

The Chairman: The hon. Member is not being stopped from discussing the Clause so I hope he will continue to discuss only the Clause.

Mr. Bevan: I am bound to say that we are all speaking under a great sense of frustation in that we have to make general remarks on the Clause, which would be much more business-like if they

were devoted to the merits or demerits of particular Amendments to the Clause. That is our difficulty; and, having prepared our speeches and studied the Bill with a view to elucidating what is in the Government's mind on specific points of the Clause, we are now faced with the position that we have to discuss the whole lot together. It makes the Committee stage of the Bill meaningless. Therefore, I say to the right hon. Gentleman that unless we can obtain from him some declaration on what he thinks about these matters, we are bound to continue the Debate on the assumption that the Minister is not making concessions upon the points which we have in mind.

4.18 p.m.

Mr. Leslie: May I ask the Minister whether it is the intention, under Clause 10, still to retain the immense powers given to an officer? If an officer is suspicious of the conduct of a pensioner, his duty, surely, should be to submit that evidence to the Board before any action is taken. Does the Minister propose to retain this immense power given to an officer under Clause 10?

4.19 p.m.

Mr. Elliot: I do not wish in any way to be discourteous to the Committee, and I am very anxious that we should not find ourselves discussing the report of this Clause on the Committee stage. I had Amendments down to this Clause, some of which dealt with one or two of the points raised. I did not move them as a result of the general desire, to come as quickly as may be to the important matters in the Second Schedule. It is not my intention to run away on the Report stage, and the Amendments I put down I shall certainly move. I shall take note of the points raised by hon. Members and try to meet them on the Report stage.

Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Clause 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 12.—(Transitional provisions.)

Amendments made:

In page 8, line 41, leave out "of May," and insert "ending with the third day of August."

In page 9, line 1, leave out "the order," and insert:


any order for outdoor relief which was, at any time during the period of six months ending with that date, in force in the case of the applicant."—[Mr. Elliot.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

4.21 p.m.

Mr. Woodburn: I want to raise, on behalf of the local authorities in my area, a very important question as to what is going to happen to the old age pensioners who will be transferred from their authorities to the authority under the Act. I have been given a list of people assessed under the present authority with a sample of what is to happen to them under the new authority, and I would like the Minister to take these into account when considering the matter at a later stage. In the first case a person at present receives 11s. 2d. supplementary pension over his 10s. pension. Under the new authority he would receive 6s. 6d.—a loss of nearly 5s. a week. Another receives 20s. 11d. supplementation, which will be cut to 16s., or a loss of 4s. 11d. per week; another will drop from 9s. to 6s. and another from 18s. 5d. to 11s., or a loss of 7s. 5d. The local authorities are very alarmed about what is to happen under the Act to these old people who are to be transferred. We would like to ask quite definitely whether these cases will be cut by 7s. 5d., 5s., and so on when they are transferred from public assistance to the new authority. I do not want to make a speech about it, because I think the figures speak for themselves. Perhaps the Minister will give a clear answer on this because it is a very important question.

4.23 p.m.

Mr. Elliot: That is not our intention, and it is for that purpose that this Clause is here put down. I shall keep in mind the hon. Member's further point about the mandatory provision. I would ask him, however, to consider whether in fact we have not gone a long way to meet him in the Amendment which has been moved.

Mr. George Griffiths: Do I understand the Minister to say that no old age pensioner receiving a supplementary grant from public assistance will have any reduction whatever when this

Bill becomes an Act? Will he retain the same supplementary pension as he did under public assistance?

Mr. Elliot: I am anxious not to delay the Committee, but I would say that in general it is our intention that the present determinations should be carried on. I cannot, of course, give an absolute pledge that it will be so in all cases.

4.25 p.m.

Mr. Bevan: Is it not only until the Board has an opportunity of applying its own scales? The Committee ought not to be misled. This Clause is called "Transitional Provisions" to enable the Board when the old age pensioner is handed over on the accepted day to regard the assessment of the local authority as the assessment of the Board until such time as the Board makes its own assessments. When it does it may be below or above the original assessment of the public assistance authority. This is a mere cushion, or shock-absorber, which we are discussing at the moment, and there may be some doubt whether the Board has the right to—

The Chairman: I am not sure that I was not a little lax in not interfering before; but I am very loth to interrupt hon. Members more than I can help. This Clause does deal with transitional provisions, and I ought not to allow any question or discussion on any matter other than transitional provisions.

Mr. Bevan: It is precisely that that I was discussing.

The Chairman: I do not want the hon. Member to discuss points which I have just ruled out.

Mr. Bevan: It is for the convenience of the Committee that we should be told how far we should go, but as I have not reached the frontiers, I have not yet offended. The position is that the Minister has given the impression—indeed he has given it right through these Debates—that it is the intention that the Board should treat the old age pensioners in accordance with the practice of the best authorities. The Minister knows he has no right to say any such thing, and he knows when saying it that he is deliberately misleading the Committee. He has no Statutory right at this moment


to say what the Board are going to do, and the Board have not told him. I challenge him to produce any document in which the Board have given him any instruction to say any such thing. Under the 1934 Act, the chairman of the Board made exactly the same sort of statement to the Committee, and we had the same kind of exaggerated case dragged out at that Box as a decoy, given as an example of how the Board would deal with certain cases. The chairman contravened what he had said in the first regulations. Anything falling from the lips of the right hon. Gentleman in respect of this particular Clause is to avoid a row in those better-off districts. The right hon. Gentleman learns by experience and knows what happened before. The regulations had to be withdrawn, and the supplementary provisions carried the thing on for months so that by the time it was over the unemployed were too starved to have anything to say. This is a psychological cushion, and when it masquerades as anything else it is a deception of the Committee. I say to my hon. Friends and others that they are not entitled to go to their constituents and say that under this Clause the Bill has any such powers as those suggested, except a temporary assessment of the public assistance authorities until the Board themselves have an opportunity of bringing in their own scales.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Ness Edwards: Do I take it that under this Clause it is proposed to continue the supplementary grants which people are getting from the public assistance committees as supplementary pensions under this Bill so long as the household conditions of the pensioner remain the same?

Mr. Elliot: The position is quite clear as I stated it before. As I have said, the purpose of postponing the time of bringing the supplementations into force is for the purpose of obtaining regulations which will be laid before the House.

Mr. E. J. Williams: Many committees pay in kind as well as give supplementary allowances. For instance, Cardiff City Council give milk, eggs, coal, and things of that kind. Will payment in kind and not payment in cash be given as supplementations during the transitional period?

Mr. Elliot: We have already stated that it is not within the power of the Board to give payment in kind. They will have to take account under the Amendment I have just moved of the value of any such things.

Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 13.—(Temporary provisions as to commencement of supplementary pensions.)

Mr. Elliot: I beg to move, in page 9, line 8, to leave out from the second "the," to "nineteen," in line 9, and to insert "third day of August."

Mr. Naylor: I want to ask a question, and I have no doubt the right hon. Gentleman will give me a straight answer. Am I right in assuming that the fixing of the dates in this Clause has no connection with the possibility of a General Election in the autumn?

Mr. Elliot: No, Sir, none.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In page 9, line 12, leave out Sub-section (2).

In line 24, leave out from "said," to the first "the," in line 25, and insert "third day of August."—[Mr. Elliot.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 14.—(Expenses and receipts of Board.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

4.35 p.m.

Mr. Bevan: Is it intended to take over any large number of officers from the public assistance authorities until the Board have first found out whether a reduction of their work in the months of the war will make it unnecessary to do so?

Mr. Elliot: There is a number of Amendments on Clause 17, which, I understand, are not to be moved at this stage, but which will offer an opportunity of discussing that point.

Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Clause 15 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 16.—(Compensation to officers of public assistance authorities.)

Amendment made: In page 11, line 7, leave out "salary is," and insert "emoluments are."—[Mr. Elliot.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 17 and 18 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 19.—(Application of Part II to Scotland.)

Amendments made:

In page 12, line 32, after "authority," insert:

"for any reference to a relieving officer there shall be substituted a reference to an inspector of poor."

In line 39, leave out from "twelve," to "shall," in line 40.

In page 13, leave out lines 3 to 6, and insert:
"(ii) the words 'payable under any order for outdoor relief' were omitted; and
(iii) for the words 'in force in the case of' there were substituted the words 'being afforded to.' "—[Mr. Colville.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 20 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

FIRST SCHEDULE.—(Consequential Amendments of Contributory Pensions Acts.)

Amendment made: In page 15, line 18, column 2, leave out "second," and insert "third."—[Mr. Elliot.]

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

SECOND SCHEDULE.—(Provisions of 24 & 25 Geo.5, c. 29, applied with modifications.)

The following Amendment stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Mr. Foot: In page 19, line 4, column 1, leave out "(4)".

Mr. Dingle Foot: In view of the evident desire of the Committee to press on to the later Amendments and to have a full discussion on them, I do not propose to move this Amendment at this stage, without prejudice to what I may do in the later stages of the Bill.

The following Amendment stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Mr. JACKSON:

In page 19, line 7, column 2, after "1934," to insert:
and as if after Sub-section (2) the following Sub-section were inserted:—
'(2a) in determining the amount of any supplementary pension regard shall not be had as to whether the area in which the applicant resides is urban or rural.' "

The Chairman: Mr. Jackson.

Mr. Tinker: Could you give any indication, Sir Dennis, of the Amendments you propose to call on the Schedule, so that we may know what we can discuss?

4.40 p.m.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: On a point of Order. I suggest that it would be for the convenience of the Committee, after we have disposed of the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Jackson) that, when the Amendment in the name of the Minister of Health which immediately follows is called, you should allow the Committee on that Amendment to roam over the large number of Amendments which deal with the factors which should be disregarded in determining need. The Minister's Amendment is: In page 19, line 13, column 2, after "1940," to insert:
and as if after the words 'that is to say' there were inserted the following paragraphs:—

(a) the first five shillings of any superannuation payment in respect of previous service or employment from which the recipient has retired or resigned (whether payable by a former employer or not) not being a payment on account of an old age pension, as defined in Part II of the Old Age and Widows' Pensions Act, 1940, shall be disregarded;
(b) the first seven shillings and sixpence of any sickness payment under Part I of the Old Age and Widows' Pensions Act, 1940, shall be disregarded.' "
It is clear that these Amendments are all cognate to the point, and it would be difficult for Members to address themselves to specific Amendments without roaming over other Amendments. If it be your pleasure that we may have a general discussion upon the various factors which different Members desire to be disregarded in connection with the means test, we might be allowed to have a number of Divisions on these specific points after we have had a general discussion, and not have individual debates on each Amendment.

The Chairman: Did I understand the right hon. Gentleman to mention the means test? I did not quite hear what he said about that point.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: What I said was that the various Amendments were concerned with determining what deductions should be made, and, that being so, I suggest, as they are all cognate, that they might be discussed at the same time.

The Chairman: The Amendment which I have just called must be taken as standing by itself. The next one on the Order Paper is that in the name of the Minister to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred. It is clear that that Amendment covers a great many of the following Amendments, and it is, as the right hon. Gentleman said, cognate to others of them. I suggest that it would be for the convenience of the Committee if, when I call the Minister's Amendment, the Committee is at liberty to discuss any or all of the following Amendments which are to the effect that some asset or other should be disregarded. That covers the Amendments down to and including that in the name of the hon. Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. G. White), in page 19, line 13, column 2, after "1940," to insert:
and as if at the end of the Sub-section there were inserted the following paragraph:
'(f) the first five shillings of any pension granted by the Royal Seamen's Pension Fund shall be disregarded.' 
The remainder are of a different nature and will have to be called separately. If the Committee assent to this course, I will permit, on the Minister's Amendment, a full discussion of the Amendments to which I have referred, on the understanding that after the Minister's Amendment has been disposed of I shall not call any of the following Amendments on the same subject unless I am asked to do so, on the condition that they are called merely for the purpose of a decision by the Committee without further discussion. The Amendments to which that proposal to call for a Division only refer are Amendments which, in my opinion, are not entirely covered by the Minister's Amendment. The Amendments to which the proposal would apply are those dealing with the question of disregarding unemployment insurance benefit, the income of grandchildren or great grandchildren, wounds or disability pensions, workmen's

compensation, free housing accommodation, the alteration of £25 to £100 and an interest in a dwelling house, that is to say, its ownership.

4.46 p.m.

Mr. Bevan: I do not wish to obstruct the wishes of the Committee, and I must not make a speech, but I should like to say that to describe the Amendments on the Order Paper as cognate in any sense in which they can be intelligently discussed as a whole seems to be a misapplication of the English language. It is impossible to discuss all those subjects under the formula of what should be left out of the assessment of the family income. How can anyone discuss whether money received as workmen's compensation should be left out of account in the same breath in which he is discussing whether we should leave out of account a certain proportion of superannuation benefits? The cases are entirely different. Had we discussed things in this way when we first discussed family resources in 1934 we should not have secured the exemption of the first £1 of military pension. I say, with all respect, that if all that hon. Members want to do is to make speeches, then the House of Commons is an excellent place to do so, but if they want to improve things for their constituents, this is the right way of not doing it.

The Chairman: The hon. Member said he must not make a speech, and I hope he will not do so.

Mr. Bevan: But as this is developing into a Parliamentary practice, I want to launch my protest. It is an entirely unjustifiable thing that issues of this kind, affecting the welfare of hundreds of thousands of individuals, should be treated as they would be in aprovincial debating society. If hon. Members wish to abrogate their functions they should say so. This method of doing things is appalling.

The Chairman: I am afraid that the hon. Member does not realise the point which we are discussing. If he had I am sure that he would not have made the remarks he did. What has happened is that I have been asked, as has been the case on many occasions, whether it would not be more convenient to have a general discussion on a number of Amendments upon the first of them, and


then to divide, if necessary, on those other Amendments without further discussion. I said that I was perfectly prepared to do so if that would be for the convenience of the Committee, as I thought it would be; but the matter is entirely one for the Committee. It is an arrangement to which, I think, the hon. Member himself has often agreed. It has nothing to do with any arrangement made behind the Chair. I am sorry that the hon. Member should think that, in saying these Amendments were cognate to the Minister's, I was guilty of an abuse of the English language. At any rate, they all have this common purpose, that they all concern income which it is proposed should be left out of consideration, and, while I am quite prepared to differ from the hon. Member, to my mind it is not inconvenient that all the items which it is proposed should be left out of account should be discussed in one Debate.

Mr. Bevan: I did not wish to be disrespectful to the Chair, but the point I wish to make is that the course proposed is one which perfectly suits hon. Members opposite. It is part of the procedure which they adore. On many occasions we have agreed to have a general Debate about a certain matter, and seldom has such an arrangement resulted in anything but Parliamentary hot air. On this occasion we are discussing matters of vital moment to our people. They are not general principles. The only general principle is whether all these resources ought or ought not to be taken into account. Once we leave that matter, which his out of order, how can we discuss intelligently the arguments for leaving this item out of account as against that?

The Chairman: I am sorry that I cannot allow a Debate on some subject which is certainly not before the Committee, and I really do not know what it is. The point is whether the Committee generally give assent to the course which has been proposed. That is a matter for the Committee.

4.50 p.m.

Mr. Tinker: I am inclined to take the same point of view as the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan). There are so many important items in these Schedules that I should not like them to be dealt with in one Debate. I should express myself much more earnestly on some points than on others and in a

general Debate we cannot give the same emphasis to different matters. I do not agree that they should be discussed generally.

4.51 p.m.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: I do not know that my hon. Friends quite appreciate that what has been proposed can be done only with the consent of the Committee, and I hope very much that they will not persist in their objection. The course we propose to take is the only one, I think, by which this Bill can be got through to-night, and it is the wish of the great majority of hon. Members, even on this side of the Committee that the Bill should not be held up. Therefore, I hope very much there will not be any individual objections which would stultify what is the wish of the majority.

The Chairman: I would merely repeat that I have had a request that a certain course of procedure should be followed, but that can only be done if the Committee give general assent. If that general assent is not forthcoming I must proceed in the ordinary way and call the Amendments as they arise.

4.53 p.m.

Mr. Gordon Macdonald: As I understand it, the suggestion is that we should discuss a number of Amendments together. I might speak on one and other Members on another. Then the Minister himself would reply on behalf of the Government and specify what Amendments he could accept and what he could not accept, and we should have the views of the Government quite clearly on the separate issues. On that understanding, I should subscribe to the suggestion.

Mr. Elliot: I should be most willing to give not merely a general indication of the view of the Government but a specific indication of their views on each of the points mentioned, because if we proceed to Divisions on the separate Amendments it would be essential that the Committee should know what the attitude of the Government is.

Mr. Bevan: All that the right hon. Gentleman has said—very graciously said—and all that my hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. G. Macdonald) has said, is that the Minister in reply would not wholly disregard what had been said in the Debate. That is in effect what he said.

The Chairman: Am I to understand that it is with the general assent of the Committee that the course proposed from the Chair should be followed? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] If hon. Members say "No," I cannot do it. I will ask hon. Members again whether there is any objection. [HON. MEMBERS: "Agreed."] As I have the assent of the Committee, we can follow the course proposed.

4.55 p.m.

Mr. Jackson: I beg to move, in page 19, line 7, column 2, after "1934,"to insert:
and as if after Sub-section (2) the following Sub-section were inserted:
'(2A) in determining the amount of any supplementary pension regard shall not be had as to whether the area in which the applicant resides is urban or rural.' 
The regulation of the Unemployment Assistance Board which deals with this point reads as follows:
If the applicant resides in a locality which is predominantly rural in character the said sum may be adjusted by reference to the circumstances connected with the general character of that locality in such manner as appears to the officer or, on an appeal, to the appeals tribunal, to be reasonable in the circumstances, after considering any recommendations which the advisory committee for the area in which the applicant resides may make as to the manner in which this provision should be applied in various classes of cases arising in that area or in any specified portion thereof.
I hope that the Minister will accept this Amendment, because it will remove any possibility of an injustice being done to old age pensioners simply because they live in the countryside. Under the regulation to which I have referred, if an unemployed person lives in a rural area, as much as 8 per cent. may, for that reason, be deducted from the normal award alone. This deduction has nothing to do with the incidence of rent, which is dealt with separately. This differentiation has been applied because some committee which obviously does not understand the countryside has at some time or other decided that people could live more cheaply in the country than in town. With that conclusion I, as a countryman, most emphatically disagree. It is absolutely not true. Though there may have been some specious arguments in favour of that conclusion before the war there are certainly none that will hold water to-day.
The greater part of an old age pensioner's income is spent, apart from rent, on food, coal, or clothes, and I ask the Minister whether any of those can be bought more cheaply in the countryside to-day than in the town. I am certain they cannot. Everything in the country districts is a little dearer. I made some inquiries in my division, and I found that they have to pay 9d. for a loaf, as against 8½d. in the neighbouring towns. Such things as cheese, tea, meat, flour and all the usual household purchases are a little dearer—a halfpenny, a penny or sometimes 2d. per pound dearer—mainly because they have to be brought round to the villages and cottages and bear the extra cost of transport. If a person in the village goes into town to make purchases, there is the added cost of the bus fare. Also, thanks to the efforts of the Milk Marketing Board, it is becoming impossible to buy any cheap milk in the villages. In many villages near to where I live people are having to live on tinned milk. Other things, such as fish, have now become prohibitive to poor people in the countryside. I checked up some of the prices this week-end, and I found that as much as 10d. a pair was being charged for kippers and 1s. 4d. for haddock. Fish is quite impossible at these prices. The same thing applies to coal. Owing to the cost of transport, it is much dearer than in the towns. I inquired the price and found to-day that it was 2s. 9d. per cwt. The same applies to clothes. It is obvious that people in country districts have neither the choice, nor can they buy as cheaply as their brothers in the towns. These facts prove that, in the matter of goods needed to supply household wants, the country person is at a great disadvantage. 
I know I shall be told that there are compensating advantages. Let me mention a few, which are used as arguments by public assistance committees and the Unemployment Assistance Board, to show how thin these advantages are. The first is the fact that there is a cottage garden. It has sometimes been a revelation to me to hear people who have never used a spade in their lives magnify the value of the productivity of the cottage garden. It seems to me that it is more prolific than the widow's cruse. Crops seems to pour from them which would make Mr. Middleton green with envy—potatoes, turnips, parsnips, carrots, greens enough


for a large family, besides keeping a pig and a dozen hens. How rarely do these gardens come up to expectations. In many parts of the country they are poor, miserable affairs. But in the case of old age pensioners gardens of this kind could not be taken into account at all. Most of them, I imagine, would be too old to look after them without paying for assistance. Another thing that used to be regarded as of great assistance was keeping hens or a pig. That is impossible since the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster took over the distribution of feeding-stuffs. I have also heard on public assistance committees of deductions being made because people in the countryside have been seen gathering firewood. That is rather an exaggerated thing to say but it has been known. I hope this kind of treatment will not be applied to our old people.
In small country towns there is a great number of almshouses, most of which are let to old people at very low rents, or possibly none at all. Will this be taken into account in assessing their needs? If so, it will not be carrying out the wishes of those whose thoughtfulness and kindness in the past have made these houses available. There is no valid reason for any differentiation between town and country. If it is maintained, the only reason for its retention that I can think of is that country people are supposed to be contented with a lower standard of life than their brothers in the town. This, surely, is borne out by the fewer amenities which they enjoy, the many rotten houses, their poorer education and schools and their generally lower standard of wages. I hope we are not going to perpetuate this state of affairs in the Bill. I ask with confidence, and as a matter of simple justice, that the Minister, who himself has a great knowledge and love of the countryside, accept the Amendment.

5.5 p.m.

Mr. Elliot: The hon. Member has spoken not only with great knowledge but most persuasively, and I think we must take into account what he has said. I do not think it would be desirable to insert the Amendment as it stands, but I will certainly give an undertaking that in the new regulations I will take the matter carefully into consideration.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Elliot: I beg to move, in page 19, line 13, column 2, after "1940," to insert:
and as if after the words 'that is to say' there were inserted the following paragraphs:

(a) the first five shillings of any superannuation payment in respect of previous service or employment from which the recipient has retired or resigned (whether payable by a former employer or not) not being a payment on account of an old age pension, as defined in Part II of the Old Age and Widows' Pensions Act, 1940, shall be disregarded;
(b) the first seven shillings and sixpence of any sickness payment under Part I of the Old Age and Widows' Pensions Act, 1940, shall be disregarded.' "

The Chairman: We had better make sure that there is no mistake about this—as to how we are now going to proceed. The discussion on this Amendment will be taken to include all the following Amendments on the Order Paper down to and including the third on page 78 in the name of hon. Members on the Liberal benches dealing with the Royal Seamen's Pension Fund: In page 19, line 13, column 2, after "1940," to insert:
and as if at the end of the Sub-section there were inserted the following paragraph:
'(f) the first five shillings of any pension granted by the Royal Seamen's Pension Fund shall be disregarded.' 
I am prepared to call, for the purpose of Division without debate, any which I regard as not covered and dealt with by the decision which may be come to on the Minister's Amendment. I think I may briefly indicate which they are; they are those dealing with unemployment benefit under the Unemployment Insurance Acts, income of grandchildren or great grandchildren, wounds or disability pensions, workmen's compensation, free housing accommodation, increase of £25 to £100, and an interest in the dwelling house in which he resides. I think hon. Members will find that I have covered every separate suggestion that has been made.

Mr. Foot: I take it that on the Minister's Amendment we are taking all the similar Amendments which you described a little while ago as being cognate to the Minister's Amendment, and I take it that it will be in order for us to refer to those other Amendments which are being dealt with under this general heading?

The Chairman: I think that is only saying in other words what I have said,


that we can discuss all these Amendments on the Minister's Amendment.

5.8 p.m.

Mr. Elliot: The Debate that we are now to enter upon is of the highest importance to a very great number of persons and one which we shall need to consider from the point of view of a case of its own, that is to say, the case of the over 65's. There is a number of points which arise in the case of the older people, but it would be wrong if we were to leave out of account all the things that have been decided by the House in the past. The question of disregard of certain items has been considered on more than one occasion. Many points have been settled—I do not say that means that we have not to settle them again to-night but they have been considered and discussed, as for instance disability pensions, which were considered after long representations from the British Legion and other organisations and on which a decision was come to. But I rise not so much for the purpose of reviewing all those points in advance. I sit here to listen and not to speak. At the end of the Debate we shall have to speak and give the opinion of the Government on the various points that have been raised.
The Amendment is in two parts, the first dealing with superannuation payments and the second with certain sickness payments. The second part is to fulfil an undertaking that I gave at an earlier stage. That leaves us free to discuss the suggestion of disregard in respect of superannuation payments. There are other points which, no doubt, will be raised, but this is especially of interest to the older men and women. The hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Dobbie) and others have brought to me publicly and privately the point, for instance, of the aged miners 'homes in Durham. There is no doubt that payments, arrangements, concessions, advantages of one kind or another for older people going out of industry are a feature of our industrial life which we all prize. At the same time, we have to deal with the question: Is it right to say this is the way we must look at it, and give no more to a person who has none of these advantages than to a person who has some of them? There we are in a dilemma. No one wishes to interfere in any way with these super-

annuation schemes. On the other hand, to say that we will take no account whatever of any sum so contributed seems to me to result in an anomaly. It means that you will give no more to a person who has none of those advantages than to a person who has some of them. Therefore, it seems to me we are inevitably and logically impelled towards the course which we propose here, the excepting of certain proportions of these other arrangements that are made. I do not need to carry it to the extreme case which we all know, of firms which make provision for certain employés which run up to very considerable sums indeed, sometimes £2 or £3 a week. No one would suggest that it would be desirable that anyone in receipt of a sum such as that should go to the Assistance Board and say, "Disregard the whole of this and give me an award as if I had no money coming to me from any source."
I have put this Amendment down because, first of all, it raises the whole question in the most satisfactory form. Superannuation payments should now take a place in our Statutes which they have not taken before. There is no arrangement at present for superannuation payments of any kind to be disregarded when someone asks for assistance of one kind or another. Indeed, that would be contrary to the nineteenth century view of life altogether. They would say, "These superannuation payments have been got together for the purpose of maintaining the person, and it is anomalous and wrong that payments of public money should also be made on the basis that these sums, or a portion of them, did not exist at all." We take the first big step to-night in saying that superannuation, as such, shall form a part of our social system in the future and a certain proportion of the sums derived from private efforts towards the provision of superannuation payments shall not be taken into account when a pensioner says, "That which I have is not enough. I propose that the supplementation which has been voted by Parliament should be given in my case."

Mr. Silverman: Would the right hon. Gentleman like to explain the reservations which led him to limit this concession? One can understand what his argument is, but why did he come down to so low a figure as 5s.?

Mr. Elliot: That point is of interest to the Committee, and I would like to address a few words to the Committee upon it. The Board is not in any way limited to disregarding 5s. It is merely mandatory upon it that the 5s. shall be deemed not to exist at all. That is a very important point. The Board has, thereafter, discretion as to the disregarding of subsequent sums. There might be very considerable sums subsequently disregarded. What we are laying down this afternoon are sums which are deemed not to exist at all.

Mr. G. Griffiths: Will not this figure ultimately become the maximum and not the minimum?

Mr. Elliot: I think not.

Mr. Griffiths: I am sure it will.

Mr. Tinker: I want the Minister to regard the Committee as laying down this afternoon the figure which will govern what the Board will do. We ought to meet the point this afternoon.

Mr. G. Macdonald: Why does the Minister say 5s. and not 10s.?

Mr. Elliot: I will endeavour to clarify that point. The first point I would put to the Committee is that the higher you go on this figure, the more likely the figure is to be regarded as a maximum.

Mr. Lunn: Does the Minister's Amendment mean that we are now ruling out the household means test, which is to become an individual needs test?

Mr. Elliot: I think not. What we are doing now is to deal with the sums which are to be disregarded, either in the case of an individual or of a family, and to be considered as not existing at all. "Well," hon. Members say, "this is not a high enough sum." [Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."] My answer is that we have to be practical on the point. I put the figure down, after consultation with those of my advisers who are skilled and expert in these matters, and said that it was a proper sum to put.

Mr. Silverman: What led them to that view?

Mr. Elliot: General practice. We consider that these sums represent sums which might justly be disregarded, but which might not be fair to all the people

who come under review. The hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. G. Griffiths) said that the figure might be taken as a maximum. But this is a mandatory disregard. This sum is deemed not to exist at all. Nobody can take it into account as part of the applicant's resources.

Mr. Silverman: If the 5s. to be statutorily disregarded in assessing supplemental pensions has been put in on the representation of U.A.B. officials, having regard to their existing practice, what hope will there then be that the U.A.B., in administering afterwards, will not regard the 5s. as a maximum?

Mr. Elliot: The hon. Member might just as well have said that if none of this sum had been made mandatory at all, the U.A.B. would not make any exception of the kind whatever.

Mr. Silverman: Yes.

Mr. Elliot: Well, then, the hon. Member is stultified by his own argument. The U.A.B. already disregards some of this money. That is a proof that the regulations are not being taken as a maximum, but as a minimum to which, subsequently, exceptions may be made, over and above the exceptions made mandatory by this Amendment.

Mr. Logan (Liverpool, Scotland Division): I do not know what magic there is in the figure 5s. or how it is obtained, but I know that it will be considered as the maximum amount. Has the Minister taken into review the point that this amount is for services rendered, apart altogether from the question of benefit? It is money that the person has earned in his lifetime, and he has had a pension granted—not a State pension. Is it not a possibility that if the sum of 5s. is fixed as a standard, the superannuation allowance will in future be likewise reduced?

Mr. Elliot: These are points on which the Committee has very great knowledge, knowledge much greater than is possessed by any single member of it. I willingly admit that there are Members of this Committee with more knowledge of this matter than I have myself. I am anxious to be guided by the Committee on this point, and I hope that hon. Members will be able to make up their minds about it after Debate. I put down a figure here after having carefully gone into the


matter, and having considered the practice of firms and public bodies on the one side and of the U.A.B. on the other.

Mr. Logan: Is this then a bargaining figure?

Mr. Elliot: No, it is not a bargaining figure, and nothing more dangerous could be suggested than that I am trying that sort of thing with the Committee.

Mr. G. Griffiths: You are doing very well at it, then.

Mr. Elliot: The Government are putting forward a figure. It is probably much more satisfactory to the Committee as a whole to have a figure put forward by the Government and a principle enunciated by them. I do not wish to delay the Committee further at the present time.

Mr. Neil MacLean: Is it not the case that certain figures were put in, in connection with the Scottish and English Poor Law, which were not to be taken into account by the public assistance committees, such as a certain amount of pension; and is it not the case that those figures are now looked upon by the public assistance committees as maximum sums mandatory upon them and that they never consider anything above them in taking into account pensions or allowances?

Mr. Woodburn: Before the Minister replies to that question, I would like to make a suggestion. I shall not discuss the merits of 5s., but if the right hon. Gentleman were to put in the words "not less than 5s.," would that not give an impression of flexibility?

Mr. Elliot: That is a view which I myself formerly took on this point. When I looked at the words of the Amendment I said to myself, "Would it not be better if I said that it should be not less than 5s., in order to make it clear that I had in mind that the figure was to be regarded not as a maximum but as a minimum?" However, I am advised that it would be a mistake. If I put in "not less than" here, all the other figures in connection with which those words had not been inserted would thereupon be thrown under suspicion. The fact is that such figures are exceeded in practice, and if I had put in the words which I desired I might actually have cast doubt upon figures

given in other cases. The hon. Member for Govan (Mr. N. Maclean) suggested that certain amounts which it had been made mandatory upon local authorities to disregard had subsequently become maxima and not minima. I am unwilling to enter into a discussion of the Poor Law, as it might lead us too far a field, but I say definitely that this sum is a minimum and not a maximum and that, in practice, the minima of the Board have not appeared as maxima.
Let me take the simple case of superannuation payments. In practice, an allowance has been made for these payments in the past and that fact shows that an allowance has been made for things not set down in the Board's regulations. At the same time, I admit there is danger in definition, and it must be faced. We ought to decide this afternoon upon a figure. With the consent of the Committee we have put down an Amendment to establish the principle of superannuation payments, and the Government have suggested a figure. We have placed our proposal before the Committee, and we shall be glad to hear and to profit by discussion upon it.

Mr. G. Griffiths: Have not the 5s. and the 7s. 6d. of public assistance committees all over the country become maxima, because the Minister of Health has given instructions that those sums cannot be more at the present time?

Mr. Elliot: To answer that question would lead us into a discussion of the Poor Law where, admittedly, we are bound by very much more stringent rules than we are here. We are not now discussing the Poor Law, but assistance, in which wide discretion has been given by the House of Commons.

Mr. S. O. Davies: Will the right hon. Gentleman define what he means by superannuation? I can give a concrete instance of what happened in my constituency quite recently.

Mr. Elliot: I can give the hon. Member instances from practically all the Amendments on the Paper. For instance, let us take the Royal Seamen's Pension Fund. Admittedly that is not exactly superannuation, but I am advised that it is fully covered by the words which I have on the Paper.

Mr. Ede: That pension can be disregarded?

Mr. Elliot: The first 5s. can be disregarded, and the Amendment says that it should be disregarded.

Mr. Ede: Some of my hon. Friends and I have an Amendment to disregard the whole of it.

Mr. Elliot: That is so, but I was asked for instances of the character of the superannuation. I was instancing the Royal Seamen's Pension Fund, which undoubtedly has conditions much wider than those which would generally be included under the term "superannuation." Again, there is an Amendment on the Paper relating to the Methodist Local Preachers' Mutual Aid Association. This matter too would be covered by the words which I have on the Paper. In general, the words would cover anything where payments on account of length of service were being made. In the case of the Royal Seamen's Pension Fund the money is collected from another source altogether and is paid in respect of length of service.

Mr. Dunn: Would the Minister give an indication of the view he takes about the point raised in the Amendment which I have on the Paper, in page 19, line 13, in column 2, after "1940," to insert:
and as if after paragraph (a) the following paragraph were inserted:
'(aa) the whole of any superannuation from an employers' and workmen's mutual association shall be disregarded.' 
I have already discussed the matter with the Minister and have supplied him with certain information. I would like to know whether his interpretation means that the whole of the superannuation from a workmen's mutual association should be disregarded.

Mr. Elliot: It depends upon the limit inserted by the Committee. There are two points with which I have been dealing: the character, and the amount, of the money which is to be disregarded. I say that the character of the money to be disregarded will undoubtedly cover mutual arrangements of the kind which the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Dunn) has in mind.

Mr. Logan: The 5s.?

Mr. Elliot: I put the figure of 5s. upon the Paper so that we all might see it, but the character of the payments to be disregarded is that they should be payments made in respect of length of service.

Mr. F. Anderson: I would like to ask the Minister a question. In a number of cases the "wages grade men," as they are termed, contribute to what are known as pension funds, and those funds have a guarantee from the railway companies that certain pensions shall be paid at a certain time. Those men have then to leave the service. Would a case of that sort be included in the word "superannuation," whereas it would be dealt with in an entirely different way by the railway companies? Is the superannuation side apart from the pension fund side?

Mr. Elliot: These payments are covered. That is to say, they are payments of a character which would be disregarded under the words which I have set down on the Order Paper. There are two separate points, and I think we all agree that the first point concerns the character of the payments. As I understood the hon. Member, I was asked if the character of railway men's funds of that kind would be covered by the words which I have put on the Order Paper, and I am advised that they would be so covered.

Mr. Edmund Harvey: Would the Minister explain—

The Chairman: We cannot have any more questions on the Minister's speech till the Amendment has been put.

Mr. Harvey: May I put a point which has not been raised?

The Chairman: The hon. Member can speak in the Debate on the Amendment.

Mr. Logan: In speaking on this Amendment, will it be possible to move a figure, or must we speak on the Amendment? Can we delete the 5s. and move a separate figure?

The Chairman: Hon. Members must debate this particular Amendment and the others being discussed with it. But every hon. Member if he chooses may move an Amendment to the Amendment, but it would obviously not be convenient to restrict the Debate by doing that at this stage of the Debate.

Mr. Logan: Earlier in the speech of the Minister an hon. Member debated a certain matter; it was a determining factor on which to come to a basis of agreement. I wondered whether we could come to a more convenient figure.

The Chairman: I am afraid I cannot allow a Debate on our procedure. The point of the actual figure could be dealt with at a later stage by moving an Amendment to the Amendment.

5.34 p.m.

Mr. Tinker: The Minister has tried to be as fair as he possibly can this afternoon. As I understand him, he wants the opinion of the Committee on the various points on the Amendment. Afterwards he will sum up the discussion and try to meet us on some of the points which we put forward. I think he wants the main principles of the Bill to be accepted by the Committee, and he desires us to get the most benefits that we can for our people. We on this side have argued for a flat-rate pension, and now it has resolved itself into a supplementary pension. This afternoon we want to make the supplementary pension equal to what we wanted the flat-rate pension to be, and we do not want any burdens put on the individual. That is what we shall try to do this afternoon, and we hope to carry the Minister with us.
That resolves itself into this question: What shall be disregarded? What means of the household shall be kept on one side to make it as light as possible for the applicant when he applies for a supplementary pension? When moving his Amendment the Minister spoke about disregarding certain sick benefits, and he put in a figure of 5s. We are anxious that that figure shall be higher. Whatever it may be, the sick benefit cannot go into a very high figure. Any person who is sick will require whatever is coming in, and we therefore ask the Minister not to fix a low figure of 5s. but to go a little higher. I do not know of any sick pay which goes up to £1 a week. It may go up to 10s. or perhaps a little more. The Minister would carry the Committee with him if he said, "I am prepared to let the whole of it go, because I recognise that in the household extra means will be wanted during the time the person is sick." We therefore ask that the whole of that be disregarded.
There is another important point which concerns every hon. Member, and I would ask the Minister to consider it in his final summing up. That point is in regard to the superannuation payments. There are various means of arriving at them. Various schemes are put forward and I would mention one in particular. We, the miners in Lancashire, have a scheme—not a very large one, but it is important to us—by which the members pay so much a week to the trade unions. Out of the amount that they pay, a certain portion is allocated for what is called superannuation benefit. When people reach the age of 65 very few are kept on in the mines. When a man reaches 65 years of age and what is known as the contributory pension is paid, the employer is called upon to pay the whole of the contribution; he knows when the man reaches the age of 65, and it is practically recognised that that man is stopped when he reaches that age. When he is stopped at the colliery we decide that that man shall then have 7s. 6d. a week for 26 weeks. That, of course, would be added to his old age pension making perhaps 17s. 6d. a week. My point is that at least that amount should be excluded and not brought in at all in the assessment of the household means. I am putting that case forward on behalf of my constituents. There may be other cases where it should be slightly more—it may be 10s. or 12s.—but whatever it may be, anything up to £1 a week, the Minister should carefully consider excluding it. These are points which must come under examination this afternoon if the Minister desires any satisfaction from hon. Members on this side.
I recognise, as other hon. Members do, that judging by the opinions of hon. Members on the other side of the Committee, this Bill has to go through, and in that case I do not wish to delay it any longer. If it has to be passed, I do not wish to postpone it for six months or nine months, but when it does come into operation I want the burden on these aged people to be as light as possible. I appeal to the Minister and to other hon. Members to look at it in the same way as we on this side do. Our aged people have given their best to the country and to industry. When they finish a small sum accrues to them from what they have


contributed. If it is recognised that something should be done for them, is it right when they go for a supplementary pension that that should be brought in as an asset before they can get anything at all? I do not think that hon. Members on the opposite side desire that kind of thing. I am pressing in particular my point of view with the hope that the Minister will not let the figure remain at 5s., but that be will allow something higher and that he will endeavour to obtain our agreement by trying to get the Bill as workable as possible.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: Would the hon. Member answer one question? Are all those superannuation schemes to which he referred generally limited to a period of 26 weeks?

Mr. Tinker: In the scheme of which I was speaking we are not able to quote anything more than that. In that case it is limited to that period, but I do not say that that obtains in all cases.

5.41 p.m.

Mr. Logan: I desire to call the Minister's attention to what he has placed in his Amendment:
The first five shillings of any superannuation payment in respect of previous service or employment.
It is vital that hon. Members should pay particular attention to the words which have been used here; it is also important that they should remember that the Minister told the Committee a short time ago that we should be careful about the question of definition. With regard to the mystic and mysterious figure of 5s., Heaven only knows whence it came, and where it will go rests in the laps of the gods. We have to consider what we are legislating for and what is the object of the Minister in bringing forward a Measure of this description. With regard to the question of contributions, we know all that has to be paid for, and the mater of finance is worked out.
We are now talking about the question of allocation to the individual. I would ask, What is the use of making patchwork of a process like this when to-day the Minister has the opportunity of giving equality to the old age people and placing on the Statute Book what ought to be a reality as coming from the House of Commons? We are asked, Why do we

twitter about a thing like this, and why do not we accept the sum of 5s. which is really a deduction? The Minister told us that the first 5s. will not be taken into consideration. During my lifetime I have been accustomed to administering funds in benevolent work, and out of the goodness of the members of our association we felt that after 40 years of service we should make some provision for old age. When we have had that service rendered we have given out of our funds a sum to every member, not with the view that he should go and get it supplemented by Poor Law relief or any outside body, but that we may give him something in his old age so that he may be able to recognise that having given good service to the State we have legitimately compensated him.
When the Minister is dealing with the sum of 5s. he must seriously consider what its effect will be. I can tell the Minister here and now that there is not a society of a voluntary type in this Kingdom which is receiving supplementary contributions from outside sources. When these old folk reach a pensionable period, when they are sitting in the nooks and shades to pass the remainder of their days, this 5s. will not be regarded. If I were sitting on a board it would be absurd if two or three people came to get relief in their old age—not from the point of view of charity—and we felt that out of the goodness of our hearts we should give 15s. a week to whoever the man may be, because he has proved a good and faithful servant, and it is felt that he should have something to ease the burden upon him and his wife in the decline of their days, and then we are met by some member of the committee, who points out that if we vote 15s. of our funds—not State money, but funds belonging to our members—5s. will certainly be deducted, that if we give the man 10s. there will be a similar deduction, but that if we give him only 5s. there will be no deduction. What is the use of a voluntary organisation, a friendly society, or some philanthropic employer granting a man 10s. a week, if the man then gets 5s. deducted by the State, and is no better off, but wants supplementation just the same? This is not a fair way of dealing with the matter. There is no need to apply these particular tests which are proposed, because in old age people are no longer competitors in the


market, but they do require to eat. Recognition to a man for services which he has rendered to his fellow-men should not be taken from him by Act of Parliament. This House of Commons should work out some fit and proper sum which will make this Bill a good and useful Measure, and not merely a patchwork affair, hiding under the name of an Old Age and Widows' Pensions Bill.

5.49 p.m.

Mr. Foot: This Debate is without precedent in recent years in this House. I dissent from the statement of the Minister of Health who, referring to the various items that it was proposed to disregard, said, in moving the Amendment, that the House of Commons had come to a decision on these matters before. The House has not come to a decision on these matters before; it has never had an opportunity of doing anything of the kind. In the first place, as far as what we used to call the transitional cases are concerned, the means test and the conditions of the means test were imposed by regulations under the National Economy Act of 1931. The House had not any opportunity on that occasion of deciding, for example, whether £1 of a disability pension or the whole of the disability pension should be ignored. Then we came to the Bill of 1934. It was under Clause37 of that Bill that we considered the various resources which were or were not to be disregarded. If hon. Members refer to the OFFICIAL REPORT, they will see that at that time we were working under a Time Table; and when we came to Clause 37 there were a great many Amendments on the Paper dealing with disability pensions, workmen's compensation, and many other matters. We were able to discuss scarcely any of them, because of the operation of the time limit. I give one single example. If hon. Members care to look at the OFFICIAL REPORT for 26th February, 1934, they will see, that at half-past seven, the axe fell, under the Guillotine, so that only Government Amendments could be taken. Then, there appear these words:
Amendment made: In page 33, line 17, leave out 'any wounds or disability pension and,' and insert 'the first one pound of any wounds or disability pension shall be disregarded; (c),'."—[Sir H. Betterton.]—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th February, 1934; col. 836, Vol. 286.]

That was a Government Amendment, all the other Amendments being swept aside under the Guillotine; and the House had no opportunity of deciding whether the first £1 of the pension or the whole of the pension should be disregarded. The Minister will find that on no occasion was the House able, as we shall be able this afternoon, to decide whether the whole pension should be disregarded.

Mr. Elliot: Surely the hon. and learned Member does not suggest that a decision reached under the Time Table was not a decision of the House. I would remind him that one of the most stringent Time Tables was that set up by his hon. Friends under which the original Insurance Act was passed.

Mr. Foot: I am not saying that the decision under the Time Table was not a decision of the House. The point is, what alternatives were open to the House? When you are working under a time limit, and the time limit is reached, the House can decide only upon the Amendments in the name of the Government; and all the Amendments in the names of private Members are automatically swept aside. The Government proposed that the first £1 of disability pension should be disregarded. That was the only Amendment that had to be decided, and that had to be decided without discussion. The Amendments proposing that the whole of the disability pension should be disregarded could not be considered at all. I am not suggesting that the Minister wanted to mislead the Committee, but I say that it is not correct to suggest that on all these matters the House of Commons has come to a decision. In regard to the particular example I have given, the House has never had a chance of coming to a decision as to whether the whole of a disability pension should be left out of account.

Mr. Elliot: The hon. Member is putting forward a rather dangerous doctrine, because, as I say, the original Insurance Act, which was passed when many of my hon. Friends on this side of the House were on that side, went through under a very stringent Guillotine. The hon. Member would be on dangerous ground in suggesting that the whole of that Act was invalid.

Mr. Foot: I am sure it is my fault if I have not made myself clear. I am not saying that these decisions are not decisions of the House of Commons; I am merely saying that there were certain decisions to which the House was not able to come. I am not discussing the merits or demerits of the Guillotine; I am only discussing the right hon. Gentleman's statement that we have decided these matters before, and I am pointing out that we have never had the opportunity to do so. The importance of this matter is that to-day we are to have the chance, on the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment and on other Amendments, not only of discussing these matters but also of voting on many of these matters one by one—a chance we have not had since 1931.
Let me take another example. These various "disregards"—if one may use such a word in the absence of the hon. Member the Senior Burgess for Oxford University (Mr. A. Herbert)—have been discussed when the Unemployment Regulations made by the Board have come before the House of Commons but, there again, we have never been able to discuss them one by one. We have had to take them en bloc. In these Debates I have frequently heard hon. Members opposite refer to this or that asset, generally a disability pension, and express themselves in favour of leaving it out of account. They have not been able to give effect to their views, because they have had to take the regulations as a whole. This afternoon they will be able to give expression to their wishes in the Division Lobby; and we shall know whether hon. Members opposite consider that part of a disability pension, of a workmen's compensation award, and of other matters of that sort, should be taken into account in assessing income for the means test. For the first time, we shall be able to fix responsibility for these matters precisely where it belongs.
I think our own attitude towards these various assets has been made tolerably clear by the Amendments we have put on the Order Paper. I mention only two or three. With regard to disability pensions, it has always seemed to us that the pension is paid in order to compensate the injured man, as far as money can, for the physical loss that he has sustained. We think it would be a proper and generous act on the part of the State

to say, "We will disregard that form of compensation entirely." It seems to me altogether wrong that in the case of a man maimed or crippled for the rest of his life, and is given, for that reason, say, 100 per cent. pension, of £2 a week, the State should afterwards say, "Because you have suffered this injury, because we have had to compensate you under Royal Warrant, we will give a lower pension than would otherwise be the case to your aged parents who are living with you." We shall know now whether hon. Members will support that principle in the Division Lobby.
With regard to workmen's compensation—and in our Amendments we have linked this with payments under the Employers' Liability Acts—the Committee will recall that only a short time ago we had a Debate on workmen's compensation in war-time, and the Home Secretary, in announcing the Government's proposals, freely admitted that there were some cases of hardship—I think he meant exceptional hardship—which it was necessary, in time of war, because of the rise in prices and the increased cost of living, to make some addition to workmen's compensation. That was done in view of the needs of injured workmen, because it was admitted that, in some circumstances, the 30s. maximum was not enough. Yet under these proposals, as they stand, unless Amendments in the names of hon. Members above the Gangway or on these benches are carried, you may have a position in which, if compensation is given, with the slight war-time additions, under the Workmen's Compensation Act, a part of it will be taken away from the household as a result of the operation of this means test.
The second point to which we wish to draw attention is simply this. We see a great many appeals, in the Press and on the hoardings, to "save for victory," and workmen and industrial employés are being appealed to to form savings associations in their places of work. Nobody will dissent from that, but it will obviously be a considerable deterrent to savings associations and the war-time savings groups if the present arrangements are to be maintained in this Bill, and if a man knows that a considerable part of these savings will be taken into account and that his pension, when he reaches pensionable age, will be lower in consequence. There seems to be a


discrepancy here between the policy of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and that of the Minister of Health, and for once in a way we are on the side of the Exchequer. For these reasons, it seems to us that the Amendment that the Minister has proposed does not go sufficiently far. We are not discussing now the main structure of the Bill, but we think that without impairing that structure, and without incurring, as far as we can see, any very heavy additional financial burdens, it will be possible to go further in the way that our Amendments suggest, and we shall certainly vote for these Amendments in the Division Lobby when the time comes.

6.1 p.m.

Mr. Dunn: I could not help thinking when the Minister was outlining his Amendment that he found himself in a considerable difficulty with regard to the many hundreds of thousands of people in this country who will be affected by it. I would emphasise what my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdare (Mr. George Hall) made clear at the commencement of these discussions on the Bill, when he pointed out that, in regard to superannuation, there were no fewer than 1,700,000 people who would be affected. The Minister has got himself into a jam as far as Part II of the Bill is concerned, and to him I would say, "Be sure, your sin will find you out." The Amendments on the Paper to-day are a fair indication that the policy that hon. Members on this side of the Committee seek to pursue is the right policy, and one which the Government ought to have taken up when bringing in this Old Age Pensions Bill.
The Minister has made it clear that he will listen to what hon. Members on this side of the Committee have to say, and that while 5s. has been put under his name on the Paper as the amount to be disregarded under the heading of "superannuation payment," he is not tied to that amount. He knows that the class of people whom we are considering this afternoon have actually been making provision for old age in one form or another—it may be through a trade union organisation such as that referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker). The same can be said of the Yorkshire Miners' Association, and many other miners' associations throughout the

country. There are many organisations in the country which, by means of working arrangements between employers and workmen, have entered into schemes and as a result have saved money to the rates, but those schemes have been of enormous cost to the workmen themselves.
I want to put two or three cases from my own constituency, about which I am entitled to speak. I will mention Maltby Main Colliery, Dinnington Main Colliery, Thurcroft Main Colliery, Treeton Colliery and Orgreave Colliery. At the Maltby Main Colliery, a pension scheme has been in existence for the last 12 years, and at the Dinnington Main Colliery there has been a scheme for the last 10 years, and in both these cases, owing to the efforts of the workmen and the employers, a pension of 10s. a week has been paid to every workman upon attaining the age of 65 and retiring from his work, and there is also a pension of 10s. a week for the wife. On top of that there has been a payment of 3s. per week by the Yorkshire Mining Association. I will now deal with the United Steel Company in my area, at Thurcroft Main, Treeton and Orgreave, and I wish to make the astounding statement that the United Steel Company, alone, have contributed to their superannuation scheme over the last five years no less than £400,000, while the workmen have also contributed an even greater amount. In fact, the two combined, the workmen and the owners, have paid up to date over £1,000,000. Such schemes are in existence not only in my division; many hon. Members on this side of the Committee have spent years in trying to build up schemes of this kind to which the workmen have contributed generously. Yet some people say that the workmen are not prepared to make reasonable contributions.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer told the country and the House of Commons how costly it would be to work this scheme. At the Maltby and Dinnington Main Collieries the contributions to national health and to pensions schemes amount to 1s. 5d. per week, while at the Thurcroft, Treeton and Orgreave Collieries the contributions amount to 2s. 5d. a week, and at the age of 65 the workmen are entitled to 10s. a week. What will be the effect of this legislation upon people of this kind? Unless the


Minister is prepared to make "disregards" equal to the full amount, as covered by the Amendment standing in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) and myself, he will be acting contrary to what he says he wants to do. I know that the Minister cannot be desirous of doing any disservice or injustice to thrift organisations, but unless the whole of this amount is disregarded, he will kill stone dead any such schemes in this country. It will be saying in effect to the people of this country that there is no purpose whatever in launching schemes of this kind.
The feeling in my constituency is that unless the Minister is prepared to disregard the amount of money contributed to voluntary thrift organisations to which our people contribute, he will put an end to schemes of that kind. I am certain that the Minister does not intend to do anything of the kind. I was glad that in his opening statement he said, "I will not make up my mind about the figure until I have heard from the other side of the Committee." If the Minister will take guidance from hon. Members on this side of the Committee, and from people responsible for working these schemes at the present time, particularly those of us who have spent many years in establishing schemes, I am satisfied that Part II of the Bill, bad as I think it is, might be made workable and effective. I beg of the Minister not to be in too great haste to fix 5s. or any figure, but to have regard to the suggestion that, where there are voluntary organisations and thrift schemes of this kind, the whole of the amount should be disregarded.

6.13 p.m.

Sir Adam Maitland: Members of the Opposition have very rightly seized upon this opportunity to point out some of the difficulties which have arisen from the fact that the Govermen do not think it wise at the present time to introduce a scheme providing for an increase in the flat rate of old age pensions. I say at once for myself, and, I am sure, for many other hon. Members, that we would all be glad to think that the time was not far distant when all who are engaged in industry would be able to retire on a pension which would be sufficient in itself to provide a real and adequate livelihood; but unfortunately we are living in troublous days, and at the present time I have no hesitation what-

ever in supporting the Government in the proposals they have submitted. Having said that, I would add that I am sure that there are other hon. Members who, like myself, are most anxious that, in the administration of the supplementary pension, there should be as much latitude as possible in order to see that the really deserving cases were properly and generously met.
As I listened to the Minister, I rather gathered that he was not wedded to the actual sum of the first 5s. of any superannuation payment being disregarded and I was glad to hear that. I feel myself, however, that 5s., if it goes through in its present form, is not only likely to be the minimum, but in practice it will become the maximum which is to be disregarded in dealing with applicants for supplementary pensions. Because I feel that, I would like a definite assurance from the Minister on these grounds that if, in fact, this Clause does not make it legally plain that it is not intended to be a maximum, he will take steps between now and the Report stage to see that words are included to give effect to what is, I think, the general feeling of the Committee. It is always difficult to convey one's ideas in drafting Amendments; the language of the law is quite different from the language of the layman—but would it help in the administration, which we all desire to make as easy as possible, if the words "the first 5s."were deleted so that the Clause would read:
That superannuation payments or a portion thereof in respect of previous employment…may be disregarded.
I am putting this to the Minister in the hope of finding what is the best way of ensuring, as far as we can, that the intentions of this Committee are carried out in the administration. As I see it, the intention not only of hon. Members on this side, but amongst all Members is that there should be the greatest possible latitude in regard to the amount allowed to really deserving applicants. I would like an assurance from the Minister that the Clause as drafted does not do anything to restrict that generosity we desire to extend to our aged poor.

6.17 p.m.

Mr. Whiteley: The fact that the Minister has been led to move the insertion of these two paragraphs shows, in itself, the evils of the operation of the


means test and its penalisation of thrift. It is true that the Minister tried to point out that certain people had certain advantages against others, and that he would, therefore, have to use his judgment in that respect, but I would like the right hon. Gentleman, in thinking this matter over, to keep in mind some of the things that are happening today. These same things will happen when this scheme comes into operation. Certain sections of workers are to-day receiving increases in their wages because of the high cost of living and those increases, which have been received for a specific purpose, are actually being taken into account in ascertaining the means of particular households. We want the right hon. Gentleman to give consideration to those things and to remember that the schemes which are dealt with under these Amendments arise because people are thrifty and desire to make some kind of provision for the future. We believe that these benefits ought not to be penalised in any sense because they have been paid for by those who are securing them.
I am closely associated with the Durham Aged Mineworkers Association, which has been in existence for 40 years. I am its president. By the pennies which the miners have voluntarily contributed week by week we, in the county of Durham, have made provision for 2,000 aged miners and their wives in respect of housing accommodation, coal and rates. Surely the Government are not entitled to ask that they shall have the benefit of that, rather than the old people—because that is exactly what their proposal means. The Government are getting the benefit of what is happening to-day in connection with cost-of-living advances. The people who are getting those advances ought to have money for extra food. We have also made provision for a large number of widowers and bachelors in single men's homes and the contributions that have been made for this purpose ought not to go back to the Government under the operation of the means test. That is what our people think and I want the Minister to get it into his mind. In making these provisions for these aged people and others we have saved the nation hundreds of thousands of pounds, because, otherwise, those people would probably have had to go into the union. I think it is the

meanest of all things for any Government to come along, when a question arises of some supplementary pension being given, to take advantage of schemes which have been built up over a long period of years for the benefit of the community and the nation. The Government suggest that something shall be put into operation which will deprive people of those advantages and make the supplementary allowances much less. I hope the Minister will bear these considerations in mind and that we may have a just decision at the end of this Debate.

6.24 p.m.

Mr. Stephen: I support the Opposition in pressing on the Minister the need for supporting our views on this matter. I have gone carefully over the arguments advanced from the Government Front Bench, and although I do not think I am deficient in the up-take, I cannot get at their point of view. The hon. Member who has just sat down mentioned the case of cottages for aged mine workers. That is symbolic of a great deal that is being done throughout the country. There is the possibility of much more being done in the future along those lines, yet the Government, by their action, are doing their best to prevent it. Nothing will be done to improve the conditions of old people if those who are interested in trying to do so see the Government relieved of their corresponding obligations towards old people. The employer who is interested in his employés, and who is anxious to do his best for them in their old age, is put into the position of being able to help them only to the extent of 5s. There is no point in an employer paying £1 per week to an old employé if 15s. of it is to be regarded by the Government in connection with this assessment. There is no justice whatever in the line being taken by the Government.
I notice that the Minister in the course of the Debates has said that in the application of the needs test it is hoped to be as generous as possible and that the scales will be put before the House of Commons for approval. But the Board will not be able to make the scales more generous than the present scales until these "disregards" are put into the Bill. The Board will be tied and there will be no possibility of giving more generous provision than exists at the present time. There is the case of members


of a household in which there are grandchildren whose earnings have to be taken into account, and if one of the household is an ex-serviceman with a disability pension that is to be taken into account in reducing the supplementation which the old person is to receive. I cannot understand why the Government should impose on the old people this sense of dependency on other members of the household, such as an invalid son who was a victim of the last war, grandchildren and others. It puts the old people, at a time when they should be free from worry and responsibility, with peace and security, before passing through the Waters of Jordan to the other side, in a position of heart-breaking dependency on other members of the household. It is not fair, and I cannot understand why the Government are not more generous. If they have to impose some needs test, then the resources of the old people alone should be taken into account. The whole thing is wrong. It is absolutely useless for the Minister to tell us that there will be generous scales and then to refuse to put these "disregards" into the Bill. The hon. Member for Faversham (Sir A. Maitland) suggested that the 5s. instead of being a maximum should be a minimum.

Sir A. Maitland: I did not say that I wanted it, but I was afraid that the insertion of 5s. meant that it would be not only the minimum but the maximum as well, and I was asking for an assurance that it would not be so.

Mr. Stephen: I am sorry if I misunderstood the hon. Member but it appears now that he thinks there may be cases where the 5s. "disregard" would be too much.

Sir A. Maitland: No.

Mr. Stephen: That is what the hon. Member says. He says that he does not want it to be a maximum or a minimum, and that means that he conceives cases where less than 5s. should be disregarded and also cases where he considers more should be disregarded. I cannot follow him in his outlook at all. This proposal is a poor pitiful thing, and I hope the Minister will take out the 5s. altogether or at least alter it so that the 5s. will necesarily become the minimum amount to be disregarded. I know the tendency will be to make the 5s. the maximum. I would like to see it out

altogether. There is no reason why persons who have contributed to their pensions in the past should now be penalised for their thrift in those years. Again and again, I have heard hon. Members talk about the necessity of people exercising thrift. It was, we were told, one of the great attributes in the British character. But, again and again, I have found hon. Members opposite doing everything to discourage thrift. The refusal of the Minister to accept Amendments on the Paper and to increase the "disregards" in this matter means the discouragement of thrift, and will impose intolerable meannesses on these old people. It will make them feel that they are a burden on the community and on their own household. Parliament has been responsible for various pension schemes and superannuation schemes in the case of the Civil Service, the Navy, the Army and the Air Force, but they never sought to do the kind of thing they are doing here in connection with those services. It is wrong—because these are old people and, largely, very poor people—that this Committee should impose additional hardships and injustices upon them. I protest against the way in which the Minister has refused to meet us and widen these provisions so that these old people may have comfort and security and a sense of independence in their old age.

6.37 p.m.

Sir William Wayland: I have listened with great interest to several of the speeches in the Debate and particularly to the speech of the hon. Member who told us what had been done for the miners in the County of Durham in their old age. I have always been an advocate of thrift in industry, that is to say, that I have always been in favour of employer and employé together building up a fund whereby the employé can benefit in his old age, and it is a very encouraging sign of the times that this idea has been spreading so rapidly during the last few years. To-day, in very many industries and businesses, you will find both employer and employé contributing towards a pension scheme, and I should be very sorry to see anything done which would frustrate or hinder that movement. I think we should support it by all means in our power. Thrift is one of the foundations of the prosperity of the country. It is owing to the wonderful thrift of the


French people that France has been able to keep herself as one of the foremost financial powers in the world. I hope the Minister will take a very generous view of the Amendment and that he will not confine himself to the amount he has specified. I think it would pay the Exchequer. We are asking now for contributions from men and women to support the financial part of the Bill, and I trust that nothing will be done to diminish the interest which every wage earner should have as to what he will get in his old age by his own effort and the support of his employer.

6.40 p.m.

Mr. Woodburn: I am sure the Minister must be wishing that the Government had accepted a flat-rate increase in pensions when he sees all the difficulties with which he is going to be faced in the administration of the scheme for supplementary pensions. There are two Amendments in my name to which I want to speak. In doing so, I come into conflict with the figure of 5s. which the right hon. Gentleman has included. If the Government are acting with a sense of meanness, I can see the reason for the 5s. if they are going to save the money. But, as far as I can see, the concession of this 5s. does not save the Government one penny. It will save certain pension funds and certain employers, because the firms which normally grant a man 10s. a week will obviously say there is no point in giving a man an extra 5s.; they will give him 5s. Therefore, the State does not really save. It means that the man loses the extra 5s., and unless the right hon. Gentleman is taking the view that nobody must rise above a dead level, there seems no justification for the State preventing that man getting the 5s. which does not cost the State anything and which does not come to the State if they prevent him receiving it. I suggest that it would be far better to leave it out altogether, because the pension scheme applies only to a man with a limited income, and, therefore, it is not likely that any of these men will be in any superannuation scheme which will amount to more than 10s. The right hon. Gentleman would save himself a great deal of trouble and the Government much reproach if he left the figure out and simply said that any superannuation pay-

ment in respect of previous employment which the recipient received should be disregarded. The right hon. Gentleman would lose nothing. Some of the old age pensioners would be a little better off, but why should we prevent them from being a little better off if it does not cost the State any money?
In my second Amendment I suggest that we should substitute £100 for £25. When the original Acts were passed £25 was a good deal more than it is to-day. To-day most people may have saved up more than £25. We only take the figure of 5s. It will be very difficult to justify preventing a person being exempted up to a capital sum of £100 if you exempt other people from even a minimum of 5s. per week. Five shillings per week equals £12 per year, and nobody can possibly get £12 per year from a capital sum of£25. Therefore the least sum you can think about, from the point of view of exempting a sum from an old age pensioner who has no superannuation, would be £100, which at 5 per cent. would only give him £5 a year—a very modest sum to exempt on account of thrift. I am sure hon. Members who do not want to penalise thrift will recognise that £25 is much too paltry a sum to exempt as capital savings. I am sure we must take £100 and make that the sum which should be completely exempt from any charge in the case of the old age pensioner. I hope the Minister will be able to accept the Amendment, because we would rather not divide upon it. Hon. Members on this side would prefer him to accept the Amendment generously, and we would not mind his getting the credit for doing so. It would indeed be awkward if hon. Members opposite had to vote against it.

6.46 p.m.

Mr. Graham White: This Amendment goes to the root of the unpopularity of the means test, and in present conditions, it touches some of the aspects of major war policy. The means test is unpopular for a variety of reasons, but one of the considerations which underlie a great deal of the bitter feelings about it is that it hurts those who have done the most for themselves. Many people who throughout their lives have been frugal and thrifty find that under the means test they are treated most hardly in comparison with those who have made no attempt to save. That is one reason


for dealing as generously as possible with superannuation payments. This is a matter of public policy in the sense that the superannuation funds of various sorts are an expression of the national conscience, the feeling that something ought to be done by the employer to see that those whom he employs do not suffer in their old age. It would be unfortunate if this proposal or any other proposal were to discourage a movement of that nature.
Moreover, in many of these superannuation funds it is simply a question of deferred pay. These funds are a recognition that the remuneration of certain workers in various occupations has not been of such an order during their working life that they could be expected to save enough to live upon in their old age. Consequently, it is a man's deferred pay which is being taken into consideration, and for which he is being penalised, when the superannuation payments are taken into account. I heard with some satisfaction that the Minister considered that one or two of the special funds that are mentioned in subsequent Amendments will be covered by the terms of his own Amendment, but I join with other hon. Members in pleading that superannuation payments should be treated more generously and that, in the public interest, a much more liberal view should be taken of them. At the present time, there is a public discussion proceeding on the subject of deferred pay in relation to war savings. I think that the war savings movement, if they want to get wholehearted support and the production of the small savings which are necessary for our national success, will have to give an assurance that deferred pay and superannuation allowances will be exempt from the means test operations when the war is over. That is a wide issue of policy which calls for attention at the present time. For these various reasons, I hope that the Minister will so extend his Amendment that we shall be able to agree upon it without a Division.

6.50 p.m.

Miss Ward: I regret that, as I was unable to be in the Committee at the commencement of the Debate, I have not heard all the discussion. Am I right in assuming that in the Amendment which has been moved by the Minister it is laid down as statutory that only 5s. of

any disability pension shall be disregarded in assessing the need for a supplementary pension? Am I right in assuming that the Amendment covers everything—

Mr. Elliot: No. It is only a question of superannuation payments. The disability pensions are covered by a statutory exemption. What we are discussing now is the proposal in the Amendment that superannuation payments should also be brought in, and that 5s. should be disregarded in that respect.

Miss Ward: I apologise for not having been present to hear the speech of the Minister in moving the Amendment. I understand that there will not be a further Debate on the question of disability pensions, and that the whole position has to be clarified in a general discussion on this Amendment—

Mr. Jenkins: On a point of Order, Colonel Clifton Brown. I was under the impression that we were discussing not only the Minister's Amendment, but other Amendments as well.

The Deputy-Chairman (Colonel Clifton Brown): The Committee is discussing a whole series of Amendments.

Miss Ward: Before raising one or two matters in connection with disability pensions, I should like to say that, after a fairly long experience of the industrial parts of the country, it seems to me that on almost every occasion the people who have been thrifty lose at the hands of the State. That is the only comment I will make now on that side of the matter, because I appreciate that this Bill has been introduced at a very critical time in the nation's history, and I appreciate it that my right hon. Friend has been able to bring in a Bill which improves the position of the old people. I want simply to put it on record, as it were, that practically all the legislation which has been passed in relation to these matters has penalised the thrifty people; and I hope that when we get into less difficult times we shall be able to do something to improve the position of those who have been thrifty throughout their lives. There is a very strong feeling in the industrial community that our policy is not directed towards encouraging thrift, and I am very sorry that that principle appears to be embodied in this Bill.
As I understand it, in the case of disability pensions £1 is disregarded under


the Statutes. Personally, I would prefer that no part of a disability pension was taken into account, and I should like to draw the Minister's attention to one point which seems to me to prove that at any rate in one direction the Government's policy has been to disregard the whole of a disability pension. At present, if an aged person goes into a public institution, the State pension ceases and the State acquires that pension into its funds, but if an ex-Service man enters an institution, carrying with him a disability pension, that pension in its entirety is paid to him in the institution. It may be true that the local authorities may themselves make a demand on the pensioner for part of the disability pension to be given into the local funds, but the State differentiates between a man entering an institution with an old age pension and a man entering an institution with a disability pension. By deciding in this Bill to disregard only £1 of a disability pension, the Government are taking a backward step in the matter of war service pensions.
It is a pity that, as far as the aged are concerned, any part of an ex-service man's disability pension should be taken into account. I hope my right hon. Friend will consider this point because, although it may not be quite in order on this Amendment, I want to say definitely that we have here an opportunity of laying down the principle that we will not paint picturesque scenes about what will be the position of ex-service men after the war is over, but that our whole policy will be directed towards assisting the ex-Service men and that what the State gives to them will not be taken away from them. I want that principle to be understood by the Government now and to be embodied in any legislation that may be passed. We could have no better opportunity than the present one for making a start in that direction by saying that when a man reaches the age of 65 years and he is in possession of a disability pension, that pension will be disregarded in relation to any assistance that may be given to him by the State. I hope that in this Bill and in other legislation the Government will have proper regard for those who go out to defend the liberties of this country and the world.

6.58 p.m.

Mr. Jenkins: The hon. Member for Wallsend (Miss Ward) has made out a

strong case for disability pensions being retained in their entirety by the pensioners and not being subject to any deductions when the pensioners eventually receive old age pensions. I think an equally strong case can be made out for the industrial warriors. The men who have served for three or four years in the war have undoubtedly given magnificent service, but one has to compare those three or four years of service with perhaps 40 or 50 years of service in some of the most difficult of our industries. It may well be argued that equal consideration should be given to these industrial workers. The Minister has already given some clear indications as to the lines on which he intends to proceed. The Amendment which the Minister has moved indicates to me—and the right hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity of saying whether I am wrong—that he is fixing a standard of about 15s. a week—10s. pension and 5s. superannuation payment. Does this mean that the Minister intends that 15s. shall be the payment that will be allowed by the Assistance Board to old-age pensioners? It seems to me that he has indicated in the Amendment that that is the standard he intends to fix.
What would be more reasonable—even accepting the Minister's point of view and taking these things into consideration—would be to say that, as a minimum, £1 a week from any source shall be disregarded. It has already been admitted that when a man has a disability pension, £1 a week of that pension should be disregarded, but if there is sickness in the house, the allowance in that case is to be only 7s. 6d. per week. I suggest that these varying standards will lead us into chaos. Now that a flat-rate increase in pensions has been turned down, I think there ought to be some degree of uniformity in deciding the amount of income from other sources that shall be disregarded. Since it is provided in the Unemployment Insurance Act of 1934 that £1 a week shall be disregarded in the case of a disability pension, I suggest that at least that amount should be disregarded when there are other sources of income.
There is another instance in which the Act of 1934 is more favourable. A man who is unemployed and who finds some other work is entitled to do that job and earn up to £1 a week. It is regarded


as a subsidiary occupation, and he is entitled to get unemployment benefit and at the same time earn £1 a week. Those are two points in which the existing law is more generous in its application to the recipients of benefits from national sources than the proposal in the Amendment put down by the Minister, and it seems to me that there ought to be some degree of uniformity and that the standard set by this Bill should not be below the present standard.

7.3 p.m.

Mr. G. Griffiths: The impression left by the Minister when he moved this Amendment was, "Now I am doing something for the old people." When we look at his Amendment, however, we find that the position is worse than it was under the regulations issued by the Minister of Health 10 years ago. Those regulations laid down that the public assistance committee should not take into account the first 5s. of any benefit from a friendly society or the first 7s. 6d. of any National Health Insurance benefit. That meant that when application was made for public assistance 12s. 6d. a week was not to be taken into account. The Amendment moved by the Minister does not say that 5s. and 7s. 6d. shall be disregarded. The Amendment says that the first 7s. 6d. payment under the National Health Insurance Act shall be disregarded. That means that an applicant will be 5s. worse off than under the regulations issued 10 years ago, and yet we talk about marching on and talk about progress. It is a retrograde step. I am sorry that the Minister is not in his place at the moment, but I hope his colleague the Secretary of State for Scotland will make a note of this point. Again, nothing is said in the Amendment about workmen's compensation. I have sat on public assistance committees and I have seen scores of men who, when they have met with an accident, had to apply immediately for public assistance. If they received accident compensation, half of that was not take into account. This Amendment refers to 7s. 6d. of any State insurance or friendly society benefit, and as I read it that means benefit paid to anybody in the house. An old age pensioner may have two sons at home, both of whom are getting sickness benefit, but only one 7s. 6d. will be disregarded.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Colville): I think that particular

point should be answered at once. It means the first 7s. 6d. of benefit paid to each member of the household.

Mr. Silverman: I should have thought that my hon. Friend's interpretation of the words on the Paper was indubitably correct. If the right hon. Gentleman opposite says that that is not the intention, of course we all accept his statement, but it might be found that my hon. Friend's fear would turn out to be well founded if the words had to be interpreted judicially. I hope the right hon. Gentleman opposite will be able to give an undertaking to insert words to make it clear that the Amendment does mean what he has just said.

Mr. Colville: I am sure my right hon. Friend would be anxious to make it clear that what I have said is correct.

Mr. G. Griffiths: I have already said that when a man applies for public assistance half the amount of any compensation paid to him is not taken into account. We are anxious that under this Bill no compensation should be taken into account. The Amendment does not say that compensation shall be disregarded. We in the mining industry understand more about workmen's compensation than those connected with any other industry, because of the number of our people who are injured. One in every four was injured in 1938. We ask that compensation money shall be entirely disregarded.

7.13 p.m.

Mr. G. Macdonald: Having done our best to resist the household means test, what we are anxious to do now is to make that test as acceptable to the old age pensioner as possible. I would like to bring to the notice of the Government a case which came to my knowledge this week-end of an old age pensioner who, after a great struggle, managed to buy a bungalow. He acquired that bungalow as a result of 25 years' hard struggle, and he asked me, "Do you think that I shall suffer as a result of this struggle to get this bungalow?" I said, "I cannot believe the Government would do that in the case of an old age pensioner." But I want to ask the Secretary of State to ask his right hon. Friend to take into consideration the case of old age pensioners who are living in their own houses. I sincerely hope that the Government will see that thrifty people of that kind are


not penalised. We have heard that there is no desire to penalise thrift, but if the fact that this man to whom I refer has the ownership of his bungalow is taken into consideration, that will be penalising thrift. I hope that whoever replies to the Debate will tell us to what extent a man is to be given the advantage of 25 years' effort to get a bungalow.
The hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. G. Griffiths) put very forcibly the case in regard to workmen's compensation. Again I want to put a practical case—a. case of an old age pensioner, a married son and wife, and two children living together. Supposing the married son, earning £2 10s. a week, meets with an accident and as a result has his income reduced to 25s. What is the intention in that case? He has a wife and two children to maintain on 25s. a week. Surely it is not intended that that amount shall be taken into consideration. What would be the Government's intention in the worst type of case, that of two single sons who have both met with an accident and had their incomes reduced by half? Reference has already been made to an old age pensioner who was receiving compensation and I will quote a case of a man living near to me. The man is 66 years of age and receives 12s. partial compensation. The income is £1 for two old age pensioners, making 32s. 6d. Surely it is not going to be said that that makes 16s. 3d. a head and that there is no need for a supplementary pension.
We are told that the household means test is to be administered in a very generous manner, but there can be no generosity if a man has struggled to buy a house during his lifetime and he is to be penalised for that. Is it expected that a man who has a house of his own shall receive as much as a man who has not? That is the question which has been put by the Minister. He asks whether we suggest that both cases should receive the same supplementary pension. Our answer is, "Yes, we do, otherwise we shall be penalising thrift." The only way not to penalise thrift is to give the same to those who have a house and those who have not.

7.19 p.m.

Mr. Ness Edwards: I have listened to these Debates from the commencement, and I have been interested in the way

the Minister has reacted to various criticisms. I have told some of my hon. Friends on this side of the Committee that he impresses me as one at least on the Front Bench who has a kind heart but I was told in my innocence that I had better wait and see. He has made the general pretension of having a great amount of feeling for the old age pensioner, and he has talked about a supplementation equivalent to that of a good authority, that he wanted to be generous, that he wanted the old age pensioners to be no worse off, and so on. But how does he prove himself in the first Amendment? The first concession he made was in relation to payments under Clause 3 (b). He said that the 10s. sickness payment to which the insured person over 60 was entitled was a right that would be conserved. In addition to receiving 10s. old age pension at 60, insured persons, if they become subsequently sick, will be entitled not to 10s. National Health Insurance, but to what is called 10s. sickness payment additional to their pension. It is that sickness payment which is dealt with in the latter part of this Amendment. The Minister says that they shall have it under the first part, but when it comes to be calculated or reckoned in the second part, it is only 7s. 6d. That is his first attempt to express his generosity and his feelings hidden under a mantle of virtue.
He has told workmen's institutions and organisations throughout the country to be thrifty but not to provide for more than 5s. a week, because, if they do, the Government will take it into account to relieve themselves of the liability to give a supplementary pension. There are many clubs and schemes in this country, and workmen buy annuities and have insured themselves for a pension, but their foresight and vision will be penalised. Frankly, I cannot see how the Minister has redeemed those pledges repeated so often. We are now discussing the Unemployment Assistance Regulations, as amended, for the purposes of this Bill. What we have to consider to-night is the application of these Regulations, as amended by the Minister's Amendment. We already have it that the household in which the claimant resides shall be disregarded, and I hope the Minister will not say that he is giving us a point when he makes the statement.
In order that we may consider the matter against the proper background, it is necessary to study what is said in the Memorandum to the Bill. It says:
the existing regulations relating to the granting of unemployment allowances and the determination of needs will apply (with any necessary adaptations of wording) to supplementary pensions.
I want to ask how they are applied. The Chancellor of the Exchequer applied them in making his statement to the House. He told us about the woman pensioner of 72 with a daughter aged 40 who looked after her. Their rent, he said, was 13s. 4d., and in that case they would be given 23s. 6d. a week supplementation in summer and 25s. 6d. in winter. He emoted three cases, which, I take it, were designed to be an indication of the generosity of the Minister of Health. I do not know whether he deliberately deceived this House, but he took two cases of small families with a large rent and one case of a big family with a smaller rent—in neither of the cases were there any other resources—in order to show how the means test is to work. He took cases in which the household means test could not apply, and in that way he did not play fair with this House, or inform them of the position.

Mr. Elliot: I do not want to interrupt the hon. Member, who is making a very interesting contribution to the Debate, but I think he does a little less than justice to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Chancellor was not bringing these cases as typical of how the Board would operate, but to show that a flat-rate sum of 5s. or even a larger sum would be inappropriate to do what we all desire should be done, namely, to remove all necessity for these people going to Poor Law at all.

Mr. Edwards: Obviously, I think, the Minister has not read the context of the speech. It seemed to indicate what was to be done under the means test. A number of Members on this side of the House rose to put that point, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not give way and showed some distress that Members should interrupt him.

Mr. Elliot: Perhaps I might interrupt the hon. Member again and call attention to what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said:

I wish at once to explain to the House that I have given these examples to show how plain it is that a mere flat-rate addition will not meet the case.
The Chancellor then gave way to the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) and said afterwards:
The merit of the Governments plan is that it does provide flexibility."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st February; col. 1493; Vol. 357.]

Mr. Edwards: There is no need for the Minister to apologise. I am afraid I interrupted him frequently in the course of these Debates. I accept his reading of the OFFICIAL REPORT on the point, but my general impression upon reading that speech was that the Chancellor of the Exchequer tried to press upon the House that these cases were typical of what the means test means to our people. Let me quote the case of an old age pensioner and wife on pension living in a household without resources, paying 6s. a week rent. The scale rate is 26s., and they have resources of 20s. The supplementary pension for that household will be 6s. a week, or 3s. per head. In another case an old age pensioner and his wife, both with a pension, have a grandson earning 29s. The grandson's net contribution to the family is 7s. 6d. The need in the household is 26s., and in that case the family resources are 1s. 6d. a week, and no supplementary pension will be paid. That is what it means. It is no use trying to persuade the pensioners that they are to have something they are not to have. Here are the Regulations, and it is no use the Minister saying he will bring in new Regulations because he has already confirmed in Clause 9 that these Regulations will apply. The only adaptation is that provided for in his Amendment.
Let me take the case of an old age pensioner and his wife with an adult grand-daughter earning £2 a week net and with a rent of 12s. I hope that the Minister who, I know, has a regard for family life, will bear in mind this illustration. The grand-daughter's contribution to the household is 12s. a week, and the need, including rent adjustment, is 32s. The resources are 32s. and no supplementation will be paid. Suppose a row develops in the house and the old man says that the grand-daughter ought to pay more. The grand-daughter says, "I am not obliged to give you anything." What will happen, as it is happening now? You will reward the breaking up of that household.


The grand-daughter leaves the house and there will have to be a new calculation. The needs are 26s. and there is a rent adjustment of 6s., making 32s. The old age pensioners have 20s., and therefore a supplementation of 12s. will have to be paid if the grand-daughter is turned out. In winter they will get an additional 2s. As long as the grand-daughter stays in the house the State evades its responsibility, but as soon as she goes the State rewards the old people for breaking up the household. That applies equally to a grandson, son or daughter.
I have a case in which I am particularly interested. There is a son who has been away working, as often happens in South Wales. The children go away to work, the old people are left, and South Wales is fast becoming a coalfield of the aged. The son meets with an accident in a Government factory and goes home to recuperate, with 30s. a week compensation. The investigator calls and inquires into the needs of the household. The old father and mother are put in at the scale rate of 26s. and the son at 11s., so that there is a need of 37s. The investigator then asks what the resources are. They consist of 20s. old age pensions, and 15s. of the son's workman's compensation, a total of 35s. He then says that all that is required in this case is a supplementary pension of 2s. There would be a rent adjustment, which would bring the supplementation to 5s. 6d. Here is a son coming home to recuperate with his parents, to nurse his bruised body back to health, and what do you do? You take some of his weekly compensation in order to save State funds. Then you talk about the sanctity of home life. In that case, too, the 3s. winter allowance would be refused because the household has resources from public assistance.
Another type of case we have in South Wales is that of a son who has been working away and becomes unemployed. Where does he go? He gets 17s. unemployment benefit and, like the homing bird, he goes home. Before he goes this is the position. I ignore the question of rent. There is 26s. need and the new increase makes it 28s. The resources are £1 and the supplementation is 8s. The son goes home and you send your "Nosey Parker" with his black bag there to ask what the circumstances are. The need of the father and mother is 26s.

and the son 11s. a total of 37s. The resources are 20s. old age pensions and the son's unemployment benefit 17s., making a total of 37s. On the morrow or the day after, the old people who have taken their son into their household will get a buff form telling them, because they have played the part of a mother and father, that they will be robbed of the 8s. supplementary pension and will not get a penny. If they do not take in their son they get it, and if they take him in they are robbed of it.
In South Wales, as in other parts of the country, the old people have a dread of the parish. There are aged people in those quiet cottages who put by in the box upstairs as often as they can their shillings, until the shillings become pounds, because, just as they do not want the parish to touch them when they are alive, they do not want the parish to touch them when they are dead. So they save up and most of the sons know that when the old people go the money is upstairs with which to bury them. Suppose they have £50 so saved up and the "Nosey Parker" with his black bag comes along and says, "How much money have you got?" They say, "We have £50 so that we shall be buried decently." The Minister under these Regulations will say, "Because you desire to be buried decently and with your own resources, we will penalise you 1s. a week." How can that be justified? Because people want to keep their sense of independence and of spiritual cleanliness, is it right for the State to use that desire in order to penalise them?
There are humble households in the country giving boys, who have been keeping their parents, for the service of the country. In the national situation which we have to face these partings have to be borne and everybody looks forward to the day when justice will have been established abroad so that they can be united once more. Many old age pensioners are waiting for the day when the armies return and when their sons will come home. But they do not know that on that day the State will have paid them their reward. No matter how great the joy will be when the sons come home, the Government have decreed that the return of the sons will be used in order to reduce the supplementary pensions. It


is not Hitler who does that; it is this Government. That may be the day of their retribution.

7.40 p.m.

Mr. Ridley: The striking and eloquent speech to which we have just listened must surely have moved the Minister to a more generous consideration than he would otherwise have given to the Amendments standing in the names of many of my hon. Friends to which the Debate addresses itself. I fear, however, that my hon. Friend's eloquence comes too late to achieve its major purpose. The provisions of the Bill are in Clauses 8 and 9 blackened by the household means test, and no matter how we may manage to mitigate some of its evil consequences we cannot now remove it from the Statute Book. The Minister must by now be convinced of the error of putting into a Bill, which otherwise in many of its provisions would have been received with some modest measure of pleasure, a mean and ignoble provision which blackens and destroys whatever kindness the Bill may have in it.
I want to ask the Minister two questions which are ordinary in relation to the speech of my hon. Friend. The Minister's Amendment refers to superannuation payment in respect of previous service or employment. There are three types of superannuation. There is the type, not numerous, for which the employer makes all the contributions. There is the type, much more numerous, for which mutual contributions are made by the employer and employed. There is the type, paid through the agency of trade unions, to which the whole of the contributions are made by the employés. Is the Minister satisfied that the terms of his Amendment fulfil the purpose he has in mind and whether a pension derived through a trade union will satisfy the condition that it is "in respect of previous service or employment" and that, therefore, a pension of that kind will rank for the 5s. relief provided for in the Amendment?
The Committee has been considering the Amendment as though the superannuation payments referred only to those payments made to the applicant for a supplementary pension. In that case an applicant drawing superannuation has the first 5s. of his superannuation disregarded. What would be the case if in the same household, in addition to the applicant, there was a brother, outside the pro-

visions of this Bill, who was also in receipt of a superannuation allowance? Is it to be understood that there will be a complete disregard of the brother's superannuation allowance, or that it will be calculated in its entirety, and will there be a disregard of 5s. in the case of every superannuation allowance in the household, no matter how many there may be? I only want to add mine to the several pleas already made by my hon. Friends for the recipients of workmen's compensation. I said a moment ago that, as must be obvious to the Minister, any attempt to mitigate the provisions of the household means test, inherently bad, must carry with it its own complexities. I can see no consistency in disregarding 20s. in the case of a disability or a wound pension and disregarding 50 per cent. of a workmen's compensation allowance, because the maximum workmen's compensation allowance, even in a case of a total incapacity, is 30s. a week, and that would mean a disregard of 15s. of workmen's compensation as compared with 20s.
There were some restive complaints in the House a fortnight or so ago about the coal supply, and some blame was supposed to rest on the railway organisation. I asked one of my mining friends in the House, "How would you like to have been a shunter on one of these terrible winter nights, with ice on the ground and snow falling, operating in the black-out at midnight or 2 o'clock in the morning? If somebody leaves a sprag where it should not be there is a risk of injury which cannot be over-exaggerated." As I go through my mining constituency I see men of 65 stumbling along with one leg and two crutches, or groping their way about with sticks when in the advanced stages of miner's nystagmus, or gasping their lives out in the last stages of silicosis. Let anyone see cases like that and then ask himself whether it is a fair and a decent thing to add to all those disabilities the inquisition of a household means test. Not only for the sake of removing the inequity of the difference between 15s. and 20s. but for the purpose of removing the inequity of imposing an additional financial burden on the pension disabilities already experienced I hope that the Minister will agree to the complete disregard of whatever workmen's compensation an injured man receives.

7.49 p.m

Mr. Harvey: The hon. Member for Clay Cross (Mr. Ridley), like the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Ness Edwards), has spoken with force and eloquence about the effect of the household means test, but although I share their views I recognise that the Committee has already decided that matter and that we are now trying to deal with various suggestions for lessening the evil, as we see it, of that form of test and for carrying out what has been clearly stated to be the intentions of the Government. I do not take the gloomy view which the hon. Member for Caerphilly took of the intentions of the Minister of Health. I think that when he introduced this Amendment he made it clear that this was not his last word, and I very much hope that when he or the Parliamentary Secretary replies we shall have evidence that he has paid attention to some of the powerful pleas which have been made, not from one side of the Committee only, because I think every speaker has desided some further concession by the Government.
When the Minister of Health mentioned the figure in his Amendment he was asked by a number of Members why 5s. had been chosen, and he did not give an answer. I think that the Government, in fixing that figure, must have had at the back of their minds the financial stringency of the country at this time. I wish he could give some indication of the additional cost which would be involved by accepting some of the Amendments which, on their own merits, have everything to be said for them. I think the only objection of the Government to accepting a number of the Amendments must be a financial one, and I hope he may be able to make clear, if he still feels it necessary to resist them, what amount would be involved by accepting them. I feel convinced that in time this Measure will lead to a wider Measure, in which these objections will be met, but I hope the Government will themselves have the credit of having accepted suggestions which have been made during the Debate to make this Measure of social reform immensely more acceptable to the country as a whole and to the poor people who will most benefit from it. There will be many who will think that they can apply to the attitude of the Minister on this occasion Browning's words:

Oh, the little more and how much it is,
The little less and what worlds away.
I believe that without incurring great expense he could go further than he has gone. If he would increase the sum that is to be disregarded from 5s. to 10s., that would be an immense boon.

Mr. G. Griffiths: The increase of 5s. to 10s. is only in the case of superannuation allowances.

Mr. Harvey: Yes, but it is a very important thing, and it will make a great deal of difference. Again, with regard to the sickness benefit which is to be disregarded, why is it necessary to have the limit of 7s. 6d. there? It can only be a matter of finance. In the case of sickness benefit the friendly societies, trade unions, and insurance societies all have their machinery to prevent malingering. There will be no danger of people drawing sickness benefit indefinitely when they have no real claim to it, and if they have a claim, surely we do not want the household to suffer in any way by that benefit being taken into account or an allowance of only 7s. 6d. being made for it.
Finally, I beg the Minister to give consideration, if not to the actual Amendments on the Paper, at least to the principle of allowances for compensation and for disablement and disability from wounds. I feel that the number of cases is comparatively limited, and more generous allowance ought to be made in all those cases for those for whose injuries every one of us has sympathy. I am sure that the Minister wishes to make every concession he can within the limits of finance which are available to him, and if he is unable to accept one or another of these Amendments, I hope that on the Report stage he will bring in further Amendments of his own to carry out the spirit of the plea which has been made from all quarters of the Committee.

7.55 p.m.

Mr. Price: I hope that the Minister will favourably consider some, if not all, of the Amendments which have been put down. We on these benches have fought for a flat-rate increase in pensions and we have been defeated. If we cannot have a flat-rate increase and must have various sources of income taken into account when supplementary pensions are granted, I hope that they will at least be flat-rate


allowances and that as far as possible they will not, as now, penalise thrift. I should like to see far greater allowances made than are suggested in the Minister's Amendment. They are no encouragement to thrift among the people with the smallest incomes. I am not an expert on this matter, and seeing there are so many experts on these benches, especially my hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan), I should not deign to intervene in this Debate were it not that I feel it a duty, as one trying to look after the interests of the workers in my constituency, to inform myself on the state of affairs from which they suffer. I should like to quote a few cases to show what will happen unless something is done on the lines suggested by my hon. Friends. I find a general fear among those who are in receipt of small benefits or have small properties that they will be "bilked" out of the supplementary pension to a greater or less extent. The first case is that of a man who has a small income from a friendly society to which he has been subscribing for years and years. He is very much afraid that now, when he is due to draw a pension, and hopes for a supplementary pension, that that little income will be taken into consideration.
Another case is that of a man with a small disability pension who is not so bad that he cannot earn a few shillings by a little work but who is now getting to the time when he fears that he will not be able to work any more. I very much fear that if his small disability pension is taken into account he will go on working when he ought not to and so undermine his health still further and have a complete breakdown. The State would be penny wise and pound foolish by trying to economise in a case of that kind. Then I should like to emphasise what my hon. Friend the Member for Breconshire and Radnorshire (Mr. Jackson) said just before I came into the Committee. He represents an agricultural constituency, and mine is also partially an agricultural constituency. I hope it will not be taken into consideration that costs of living are said to be cheaper in the country than in the towns. At present, under the Unemployment Assistance Board's scales, rural areas are, to some extent, considered as being areas of cheaper costs, and therefore only lower scales are allowed in those areas. Although an agricultural labourer

may have his garden and may be able to grow vegetables, which is denied to a town dweller, though he may be able to keep a pig, difficult as it is nowadays, when there are no feeding-stuffs, still he has to meet higher costs in regard to all that he purchases from the town. All urban goods coming to remote rural areas are subject to higher retail costs. The standard of living should be regarded as being the same for both town and country dweller.
Now I come to another case which particularly concerns my constituency. Probably there is no place in the country like the Forest of Dean, where the miners love to live in the place where they were born and they put by their pennies throughout life to get for themselves a little cottage where they can end their days. There are few places where there are so many small crofts and houses owned by the workers. I hope this case will be met by an Amendment on the Paper in the name of my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Consett (Mr. David Adams). I have a letter showing the fear that there is in the mind of this type of person. My correspondent writes:
Why should a thrifty man be victimised by a means test unless he has more than sufficient to live upon? Of course, I do not believe in giving an apple to those who have an orchard, but take my case. I have two old cottages and three acres of rough land. I live in one of them and rent the other at 14s. a month and I pay all the rates. I shall be 60 years of age on the 7th of next May. My health broke down 12 months ago. I shall only get my 10s. pension to live on. If my wife had her pension we should try to make the best of it by what we could produce as well. A thrifty man is in many ways worse off now than the waster.
That man has now 10s. coming and 3s. 6d. for the little house next door. He has his tiny orchard and the right to turn his sheep out in the Royal Forest, as his forbears had for many centuries before him. His income is anything but princely. He fears that he will have any supplement that may be coming to him as the result of this Bill reduced because he has this tiny little bit of property which he has been working for all his life and putting by for his old age. Again, that is a "penny wise and pound foolish" policy. If there must be this objectionable means test, at any rate cut out all this kind of thing. Why should we exploit the thrift of the poor in order to cheese pare for the national finances? That policy will not


help us to win the war, but will undermine the determination of everyone, including these poor people, to win through to victory.

8.3 p.m.

Mr. Ede: May I first deal with the specific point mentioned in paragraph (a)? I am chairman of an electricity authority which has established a superannuation fund, and by virtue of that establishment we are members of the Association of Superannuation and Pension Funds. As a result of that, I have received from that association a letter which they have addressed to the right hon. Gentleman. He has not, so far as I have been able to discover, mentioned it to the Committee. It appears to put the point with regard to these superannuation funds so clearly that I ask permission to read the salient passages. The council of the association, through their chairman, writes as follows:
My council make no comment as to the two principles upon which the Bill proceeds as stated by the Minister of Health to the House of Commons on the 20th instant, namely, (1) that an improvement should be made in the general pensions scheme, (2) that responsibility for the pensioners should be assumed by the State and no longer shouldered by the local authorities. My council feel, however, that legislation should give due emphasis to a third principle, namely, that employers and employés, by contributory pensions funds, should be encouraged to provide pensions upon the employés' retirement related to and as far as possible consistent with the standards of living of the employés before retirement. Many employers in industries in this country have organised such pension funds, notwithstanding that in many cases other employers with whom they may be in competition have made no such arrangements. It is realised that the present Bill is in many respects a war-time Measure, but, notwithstanding this, my council would wish to have seen in the Bill some recognition of existing private pension schemes, at least to the extent that income from private pensions funds should be wholly or partially ignored by the Assistance Board when fixing the amount of supplementary pensions. The practice is already in existence in pursuance of Section 48 of the Local Government Act, 1929"—
I think the quotation is not quite accurate, because that Section deals with the review of county districts, but I believe there is a reference to the matter in the Act:
in the rules of the Unemployment Assistance Board and in the calculation of means under the Old Age Pensions Acts. I am to emphasise that these pensions schemes are,

to a considerable extent, relieving the State and that any further legislation upon the lines of the present Bill ignoring the efforts made by employers and employés in many industries in existing pension schemes would be liable to endanger the development or even the very continuance of such schemes, the members of which must now number at least 1,000,000 persons. Whilst in the circumstances of the time my council do not feel it opportune to make any formal objection to the present Bill, I am desired to ask that account be taken of this suggestion in the framing of any rules under the Act so that a real attempt will be made to avoid penalising contributors to pensions funds in comparison with those who are not members of such funds.
We have the advantage of being able to discuss this Amendment, and it goes a very small way towards meeting the point of view set out by the writer of that letter. It is far too small a way in which to endeavour to meet it I hope the right hon. Gentleman will find it possible to indicate either that he will recast the Amendment altogether or that he will be prepared to go certainly beyond the figure of 5s.
I should like to say a few words on behalf of the Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for East Stirling (Mr. Woodburn), with which my name is associated, on the Royal Seamen's Pension Fund, because that fund has power to grant pensions of 7s. 6d. It is true that most of the pensions that they grant are only 5s., but, in view of the hardships now being suffered by seamen—I think if a man secures one of these pensions he does not get it very easily—he should be entitled to have the whole of that payment disregarded. He has to serve a good many years on the seas and to have undergone very considerable hardships, and generally to be suffering from some disability, before he can get such a pension. It would be more in keeping with the spirit of the country at present if the right hon. Gentleman could see his way totally to exempt, if he is not going above the figure of 5s., the whole payment that a man may receive from this pension fund.
I should like also to say a few words in support of the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr. Whiteley), because in my constituency there is a large number of these aged miners' homes. They really represent, in a town which was not too well laid out originally, a spot of beauty. The planning of the places is excellent, and here


a number of people, as the result of the thrift of themselves and their fellows in the industry over a large number of years, are able to spend a reasonably happy old age. I well recall that when my predecessor in the representation of the borough, Mr. Harney, who will be recollected by several Members of the House, and who used to take a distinguished and unique part in the proceedings of the House, went with me to lay the foundation stones of some of these homes, he pointed out at that time, about 1927, when the industry was in a very bad way, that this continuation of the building of these homes was an evidence of the faith of the people of Durham in the future of their industry. There they were carrying on with this good work, although a good many people believed that prosperity for the mining industry in Durham was a thing of the past. It seems to me that, if this provision which has been made by the workers themselves for the old age of their comrades is to be taken into account, it will very seriously damp down the great enthusiasm with which these homes have been erected in the past and will hinder the creation of similar schemes in the future.
The Minister must have been impressed by the fact that everyone who has spoken who has mentioned this figure of 5s. has expressed regret that it is not higher. Hon. Members on his own side have spoken for, and I think concentrated, on, that particular point. I sincerely hope that the Minister can find it possible to increase the figure. When he replies later, I hope he will be abel to announce that he find it possible to recognise the feeling in the Committee and to give a substantial increase on that figure. I would assure him that if he should be modest about making the proposal himself, if it might get him into any difficulty with the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who came in just now and had some whispered colloquy with him—I do not know what it was about—we on this side shall not be so modest. If the right hon. Gentleman finds it impossible to put forward such a figure himself, I shall move an Amendment, not necessarily because I think it is the figure that should go in, but because I think it is the figure which, not on any question of justice, but on the question of expediency, would be most difficult for his supporters to resist. I would not like to take him

unawares, and therefore I would like to say that if when he addresses the Committee he finds he cannot go to a higher figure or any figure at all, we shall move to increase this figure of 5s. to 10s.
I think we should acknowledge that the right hon. Gentleman has been very attentive to the Committee, and as to his supporters, who have been mainly conspicuous by their absence, whatever he decides they will do. We know that. I can imagine the Patronage Secretary to the Treasury saying, "If the Minister says this figure is to be £1, we will see that his supporters vote for £1."We shall have the courage to put in front of the Committee the figure of 10s., but we hope that at the end of the evening we may be able to blush for our modesty in putting forward so small a figure.

8.18 p.m.

Mr. Buchanan: I will begin by saying that I think 10s. is very modest. I do not wish to say anything against the suggestion of 10s., but I think it is the limit of modesty. I wish to say a few words on the general Amendments. First, I will refer to a point which was raised by the hon. Member for Clay Cross (Mr. Ridley), and ask the Minister whether he thinks he has made himself clear in this Amendment with regard to the payments made by trade unions in connection with superannuation benefit. As I read it, I do not think it is clear. A large number of trade unions pay superannuation benefit to the members for a time. Certain friendly societies do. Some friendly societies—the Shepherds is one of them, I think—describe it as continual sick pay and do not call it superannuation pay. They ask for a doctor's certificate every three months, and they pay a sum in respect of continual sickness pay. Unions, instead of calling it continual sickess pay, call it superannuation benefit. I think the distinction is more in the name than in actual reality. The facts are that the man or woman in both cases has retired from work.
I remember that in the working of these Unemployment Assistance Board regulations, we had great difficulty with this trade union money. In Glasgow the first 5s. of the trade union money was exempted, and suddenly it was stopped as if a knife had cut across it, and they were told they were outside the regulations. Three weeks later, due largely


to the influence of the Trades Union Congress, the 5s. was restored. I do not want this inquisition again. We have a series of Amendments, and it would be sheer impertinence on my part to cover them all again. They cover disability pensions, workmen's compensation, sickness payments from friendly societies and trade unions, payments from local bodies, money saved, and house property, and the whole series of Amendments has been put forward with a view to asking the Minister to make some exemption in regard to those matters. It appears to me that the Minister has reached his limit. I do not say he has reached his limit with regard to the amount, but he seems to have reached his limit in principle. I would like to ask him whether he would look again at this question of exemption. The right hon. Gentleman comes from the same city as I do; he and I represent districts which are not unlike each other. I do not take the view that all the Poor Law is bad. Admittedly, I come from a district where there are still some people with a feeling against the Poor Law, but I am pleased to say that it is diminishing, and if I have any influence there, I will see that it diminishes rapidly. I have been concerned in getting the people to claim their rights from public assistance and not to be ashamed of it. I do not take the view that there is anything to be ashamed of in getting one's rights from public assistance. However, it still lingers on.
Let us be frank. We are substituting national Poor Law relief for local Poor Law relief. The only difference is that instead of the money being found in either London, Wales, or Scotland, it is to be found by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Instead of putting the old people on the local rates, we are now putting them on to the national rates. That is our job to-day. Roughly speaking, the exemptions are those which apply in most cases of Poor Law relief or in unemployment assistance. That is what we are engaged upon to-day. I would say to the hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary that, with regard to Scotland, she is reactionary and backward. For a long time, long before I was engaged in public life, the position has been one of differentiating between the poor. There were what we called the able-bodied poor and the sick poor.

Roughly speaking, the present case would come in the category of the sick poor. All persons certified by a doctor were sick. People who had reached the age of 65 and who needed no doctor, were automatically taken as being sick. The third category was that of a widow with young children. These categories were grouped together and called "sick." As long as I have known public life the Poor Law authorities in these cases always paid a higher scale to the sick poor than to the able-bodied poor.
In this case we reverse the system, and to-day for the first time we put the sick poor on the same level as the able-bodied poor. The sick poor of Scotland are now to be reduced to the same level as the able-bodied poor. The first part of this Measure is governed by the Act dealing with unemployment assistance, and the scale of 26s.—or, with resources, 24s. As for the able-bodied sick poor, through all generations it has been the purpose of national and local authorities to raise them above the able-bodied limit. One of the first things the Minister should do, even if he is applying this test, is to say, "Whatever the scale may be for the able-bodied unemployed, the scale for the old age pensioners shall be a higher one, because of their infirmities and difficulties of life." That would have been some step forward. Whatever else they may do, the Government ought to review the basic scale. I take the view that the old age pension is in most cases, where the pensioner does not work, paid because a man is unable to work through the infirmity of old age. Any doctor would certify such a man as unable to work. Just as I say that a man's savings are the result of thrift, so I say that his old age pension is the result of thrift.
If the Minister wants to make this Bill acceptable, and, above all, if he wants nobody to be treated worse under the Bill than under the Poor Law, the first thing he should do is to disregard a portion of the present pension. A pension of 10s. is now paid. Let 5s. of that be disregarded. That would mean that, in assessing his means, the pensioner would at least be allowed to start 5s. better off than he would be under most of the local authorities. The test of this Bill, in my view, is, how well the old people are treated by comparison with the treatment that is given by the local authorities now. In one of his earlier speeches, the right hon.


Gentleman referred to London as a model authority, but I am not going to take any local authority as a model. One of the dominating considerations with every member of a local authority is the rates. Even the Labour party know that, if they raise the rates too high, whatever good they achieve might be swept away by a reaction at the polls of the next election. I do not blame members of local authorities for that. Combined with the question of human needs, they have always this other issue in their minds. I say to the right hon. Gentleman, never be dominated by thoughts of the local authorities and what they do. Local authorities which would have liked to be most generous have been faced with this issue, and have been compelled to grant less than they would have wished.
I say to the Minister, first of all, that he ought not to put an old couple on the same basic figure as the Unemployment Assistance Board adopts for the able-bodied unemployed. That has never been done in Scotland. That 26s., which is now the basic rate, ought to be increased. Secondly, I say that he ought to consider exempting a portion of the pension. Thirdly he ought to look at the Amendments that we have put down, particularly those dealing with workmen's compensation. He should review his whole attitude on these matters. This Bill will bring a tremendous change in the lives of a great number of people. I am sure all my hon. Friends on this side feel the same as I do about this. I like to win my political battles, but I would not wish to win a great victory for the simple reason that the Conservatives have been too stupid to do something to better the conditions of the people. I would rather take the risk, and see them do the right thing. Politically it might pay us better if the Government did not treat these people decently, but I should much prefer the Government to be generous to them. One of the things that I can never understand is how civil servants, who are themselves secure, who have all that they need to maintain themselves in decency, can work a Bill the very basis of which is one of cutting-down. I trust that the Minister of Health, with whom I have worked so many years in my native city, will not adopt the approach of the Unemployment Assistance Board, but will face this

question from the point of view of how much he can raise the standard.

8.35 p.m.

Mr. E. Smith: Hon. Members who were present when the Minister opened this Debate are bound to have been impressed by his magnanimous attitude, and I am hoping that it will find expression in a concrete form when the regulations are issued. If that is done, it will mean that the speeches of my hon. Friends have made a profound impression. It is a pity that this Chamber has not been packed with hon. Members to hear the informative speeches that have been made on this question, for I am confident, in spite of the fact that I differ fundamentally from the politics of hon. Members opposite, the reasonable and informative speeches made by my hon. Friends would have so impressed those hon. Members that many of them would have supported us on this question.
I want to say a few words on behalf of the people among whom I live. During the past few days I have discussed this question with a large number of people, and it has made me a little despondent because of the way they are looking at it. During the past few days and particularly during the week-end I have met men who had been looking forward to an increase in the old age pension. Having been regular contributors to their trade unions and having saved a little, plus superannuation benefit, they thought that public opinion and public consciousness in this country had arrived at a period when the Government would grant a flat-rate increase in the old age pension, and that as a result of an accumulation of savings, they would have been able to retire. Now they find that the Minister only proposes to disregard the sum of 5s., which will mean that these men will be no better off as a result of the passing of this Bill. Therefore, I hope that hon. Members on this side of the Committee will not be satisfied merely with moving that it be 10s. The least that we should be prepared to compromise upon is 15s.
The people among whom I move and to whom I belong are more and more speaking in this way. They say that all the staffs of municipalities receive substantial superannuation and that they have no means test and no amounts to be disregarded, that the same applies to the staffs of big firms, including the Co-operative movement, and that we have now


arrived at a period in this country when all relatively well-placed people receive a decent pension at 60 or 65 without any means being taken into consideration at all. The relatively well-placed people often do not render the same amount of service to the community as our people, and yet they have no means test and no household test, while our people are to be subject to what is proposed in this Bill.
The next point with which I want to deal is that which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. G. Macdonald). Some little doubt was cast upon what he said, but I know from personal experience that what he said is correct. I want to give a more concrete case than any that has been given up to now. Last week a broken-hearted woman came into the outer Lobby of this House with her brother-in-law, and she sent in five green cards to different Members, and eventually she was advised by a member of the staff of the House to send a card in to another hon. Member. I went out to this couple. I found a fine type of a poor woman. Her only son, who had been a pilot-sergeant in the Royal Air Force, had accepted the liability of an endowment policy, and as a result he had purchased a house in order that he and his mother could live happily together. A few weeks ago he was killed in action, and his mother rightly applied for a pension. She was told that because she possessed a house, purchased under an endowment, she was not entitled to any pension, despite the fact that she had lost her son.

The Chairman: I am afraid that the hon. Member is getting rather wide of the Amendment.

Mr. Smith: This is a concrete illustration of how the regulations will operate, and to conclude with this concrete illustration, the mother was told finally to take in lodgers. What applied in that case would apply equally under the administration of the regulations of the Unemployment Assistance Board. We hope that the Minister to-night will give an undertaking at that Box that what my hon. Friend the Member for Ince raised with regard to the bungalow will not operate with regard to old age pensions.
My final point, and it is one which has not yet been mentioned in the Debate right from the time that the Chancellor

of the Exchequer made his statement until now, is that our people, especially those of 65 or approaching 65, have been contributing to National Health Insurance since 1912. Insurance is supposed to be an insurance and not a lottery. They have by this means insured themselves against sickness, and in order that they could fulfil their pension rights, they have continued so to pay for years, thinking that they were to receive a pension at 65. In addition, these men and women have, since 1912, paid towards Unemployment Insurance, and for nearly 20 years anyone who was insured under the National Health Insurance and the Unemployment Insurance Schemes was entitled at 65 to a pension of 10s. and unemployment benefit. Along came the Government a few years ago, when the present Prime Minister was Chancellor of the Exchequer, and said that, when a man claimed his pension at 65, he was no longer entitled to unemployment benefit. I could mention a number of illustrations of that kind. I recall that the present First Lord of the Admiralty, when Chancellor of the Exchequer, was responsible for filching millions of pounds from a fund that had been built up by approved societies. Therefore, we say that, having regard to the whole of that background, it is the duty of the Minister to-night to be as generous as possible with regard to the proposed Regulations when they are applied to the people who are eligible for old age pensions.

8.44 p.m.

Mr. Leslie: I want to make a special plea to the Minister in regard to the position of those who are on workmen's compensation. I hope that he will disregard any payments made under the Workmen's Compensation Act. Mention has been made of workmen's compensation of 30s. a week, but many persons do not receive anything approaching that amount, for the simple reason that workmen's compensation is not for the injury received but for the loss of earnings. In computing the loss of earnings, holiday and sickness periods and so forth are taken into consideration, so that very often a man, instead of being entitled to 30s. a week, finds that he receives only 20s. or less. Take the case of individuals who have been contributing to friendly societies. Here are the thrifty individuals who have tried to make provision in the


event of sickness, and now the Government want to penalise them. It is to be borne in mind that when a man is injured and is drawing workmen's compensation money, or is laid up and drawing benefit from a friendly society, extras are needed in his home. Very often he requires special foods, and it would be wrong indeed to penalise such individuals by taking account of the amounts they are receiving from those sources. A plea was made to-night to disregard the case of the aged miners' homes. Great credit should be given to the miners in the county of Durham for what they have done in that respect. Instead of old people, in the evening of their lives, being sent to public institutions at a cost of 30s. a week each, and over £3 for a couple, the miners, by providing these homes, have saved the ratepayers thousands of pounds. I hope that the Minister will take those matters into consideration.

8.47 p.m.

Mr. Elliot: I understand there is anxiety in the Committee that we should proceed from the general Debate we have been carrying on, to the particular provisions of the Amendments. I think we have had an exceptionally useful Debate, in which a great many points have been reviewed, and which has been of great service and information to me. The dominating impression in my mind is the very great necessity of working closely with the best advice and counsel I can get on this very complex matter. Indeed, the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) said a night or two ago that I would have one of the most difficult experiences of my life on this occasion. Not only is the matter complex but it affects the lives of many hundreds of thousands of people who have no other resource than the community in the evening of their days. I am deeply conscious of the responsibility which that involves, and more conscious of it after the many eloquent and powerful speeches to which I have listened this evening. They were succinct as well as eloquent and powerful, and because the power of speech is not always in direct proportion to the number of minutes occupied, I will do my best to emulate the examples given to me to-night. The arguments which have been addressed to the Committee are grouped around several heads—disabilities, investments, and super annua-

tion moneys of various kinds which may be coming in to the individual who is applying for supplementation.
Many arguments have been addressed to the fact that it has not been found possible to give a flate-rate increase of pensions. The Government are conscious of the difficulties into which one is inevitably led in dealing with supplementation. For all that, I am more than ever convinced that a flat-rate increase certainly would not have solved all the difficulties. Although it might have solved some it would have left new ones of its own. Indeed, a flat-rate increase of an amount sufficient to take old people out of the Poor Law would have given us a double set of difficulties.

Mr. Davidson: Would the Minister agree that the same thing applies to the flat-rate scale laid down in his Amendment, which is five shillings?

Mr. Elliot: No, I would not. I am not sure whether the hon. Member has been in the Committee all the evening but it is not, in fact, a flat-rate increase. It is a sum to which further additions may be given and differs fundamentally from a flat-rate increase. Again, we must consider the fact that we are undoubtedly living in difficult times and we must realise that it is not possible at the present time to embark on schemes of social reform which will make a great improvement in the position of all the citizens. That, I think, is conceded on all sides, and was conceded by Members on the other side when they considered the actual scales of flat-rate increase which might be granted. It was stated that a flat-rate increase on the full Labour party pension plan was not practical politics at the present time. [Hon. Members: "Who said that?"] Well, lesser sums have been discussed in the course of the Debate. But I do not want to press the Committee further than it wishes to go although it would not be difficult to try and make a debating point. I am anxious not to do so because the Committee have been helpful to me, and I want to be equally helpful to the Committee.
The point is that as regards pensions given for disability, and by way of compensation, I do not find it possible to accede to the request addressed to me from the other side of the Committee. I


am doing my best to be quite frank, and I feel that the Committee should be in no doubt about the solution which I recommend to them. I think that on the question of thrift and capital savings, it is common knowledge that the rules for the treatment of capital in the case of persons affected by a means test have been under discussion by the National Joint Advisory Council, representative of the Trades Union Congress General Council and the Government. They are actually discussing whether some general concession should be made on this point at the present time. Any general concession would be applicable in this case as well as others, and I hope it may be possible to come to some agreement between the two sides.

Mr. Woodburn: May I put this point to the Minister? The people for whom the Trades Union Congress is negotiating are temporarily unemployed and might go back to work. There is a great distinction between those people and old age pensioners who have finished working. I hope that no analogy is to be drawn between the men who are merely unemployed and those who are out of industry for life. A different standard of life should be taken.

Mr. E. Smith: Will the right hon. Gentleman remember that that is the line he has taken throughout the Debate?

Mr. Elliot: The fact that the matter is being discussed should weigh with us. The point made by the hon. Member for East Stirling (Mr. Woodburn) is that the case with regard to those over 65 and under 65 is different, but I do not think anyone will deny that in the case of a man who has laid up savings for the evening of his days it is not desirable to introduce an atmosphere of Scrooge and grind out every penny of his savings. I have great sympathy with the eloquent speech of the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Ness Edwards) who pointed out that it would be most unjust that sums should be wrung from them in the shape of the means test. I would point out that sums of £50 are completely exempt and that it is only after that 1s. per week is deducted for every £25. In the case of a man who has savings of £120 this eats into his capital at a very low rate, even when the full weight of the means test

is applied. It would be only just over £5 a year. I am addressing these arguments to the Committee in the light of the fact that savings are being generally discussed, and that we should not necessarily make a decision upon it to-night. I am not saying that we rule the matter out, but that, as the matter is under general consideration, I cannot make an announcement this evening.

Mr. E. J. Williams: I put down an Amendment on that matter. Perhaps the Minister will ignore what may be done by the Unemployment Assistance Board, as that body is concerned with the unemployed, and look at what may be done by the best public assistance committees. If he did that, he would find that they are doing much better than the Unemployment Assistance Board in this matter.

Mr. Elliot: I should be willing to do that, but that is a point which I do not think could go upon the Statute Book. I am coming to the regulations in a moment, but at present I am dealing with questions which have been addressed to me and with arguments designed to prove that we should go much further in defining our attitude in the Bill than we are able to go.

Mr. Silverman: The right hon. Gentleman spoke about 1s. per week for each £25. I ask him to realise by how very much the amount which he takes into account exceeds the interest which people would earn on the capital they have saved and whether he thinks it is fair?

Mr. Elliot: I am not unacquainted with the point. In the examination of savings under this Bill and in the examination of savings under the 1924 Act, savings are taken as bringing in a higher rate than the mere investment rate. Hon. Members know why. It was not regarded from the point of view of merely keeping capital completely intact, but with regard to the use of the savings for the purposes for which it was assumed they were originally intended—the comfort of the individual in the evening of his days.

Mr. Silverman: If it were only a question of their own savings that would be quite correct, but under a household means test you are taking other people's savings and using them up.

Mr. Elliot: I do not think that is so to anything like the extent which the hon.


Member suggests. I am anxious not to be led away, because I want to come as rapidly as I can to other arguments which have been addressed to the Committee.

Mr. Woodburn: I gather from the right hon. Gentleman that after discussion with the Trades Union Congress this amount of money can be varied, but if I am not mistaken the amount of £25 is in the Bill, unless we change it and put in another sum. How, after discussion with the Trades Union Congress, can that £25 be altered if we decide the matter to-night?

Sir Stanley Reed: May I suggest that the true criterion is not the interest rate, but the annuity value.

Mr. Elliot: I agree that the true criterion is not the interest rate. The hon. Member for East Stirling asked how these sums could be varied if we decided upon the matter to-night. Surely the answer is that to vary those sums would require legislation affecting the provisions of this Bill and other Measures.

Mr. Arthur Greenwood: I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether his argument is sound, that this 10 per cent. should be regarded as the right rate of interest in the case of the savings of old age pensioners?

Mr. Elliot: I do not think I have said that 10 per cent. is regarded as the rate of interest. The consumption of savings is at a higher rate than the rate of interest which would preserve the capital intact, and I am pointing out that it was not suggested that capital should be preserved intact, but that it was legitimate that a certain part of the capital savings should be regarded as available for the purposes for which they were saved. I say, quite frankly, that I do not find myself in a position to recommend concessions on the points put forward. The third point is of great importance, because it is a novel one. We have discussed the question of disability and compensation, and it is generally agreed that these sums should cover the purposes for which they are intended. The necessity for supplementation is a necessity which none of us desire to arise. Then there is a new problem specially affecting the old people; the problem of superannuation. That is a point which has been specially pressed

upon me this evening by the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) in relation to the Seamen's Fund. He asked for total exemption of the moneys coming in from the Royal Seamen's Pension Fund. It has been pressed upon me by other hon. Members, and I think there is a general feeling in the Committee that it is desirable, if we can, to make sure that we do not discourage thrift, that we do not discourage the practice by which old people, through some insurance scheme, save up for their old age, or do so through some mutual arrangement which they have come to with their employers. I was asked by the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) whether the words of the Amendment cover all the contingencies which might arise. I am advised that they do. The hon. Member asked further whether arrangements in which the money was paid out as sickness payments would be covered. I am advised that they would be, not under this part of the Bill but under other parts, by virtue of the fact that they are sickness payments. We are at one in our desire in this matter, and, therefore, I am sure that drafting will not stand in the way.

Mr. Tinker: Within the 5s. limit?

Mr. Elliot: Yes, within that limit. I come now to the question of the adequacy of the sum which has been proposed. Hon. Members have suggested that no account should be taken of any superannuation payments. We could not work on that basis in practice. We could not work on the basis that a person who has no resources of any kind should be placed in exactly the same category as a person with considerable resources. I would remind the Committee that some superannuation payments run into sums of 40s. and 50s. a week, and I do not think any hon. Member would suggest that such sums could be treated as not existing when an applicant came forward to ask for supplementation.

Mr. Gallacher: When the Minister, in his opening speech, referred to these mutual arrangements which give certain advantages to old people, he paid a very high tribute to these efforts. Now he says that to treat these people in the same way as people who have not these advantages would not be fair. If he does not treat them in the same way, will he not destroy the very advantages to which he has paid such a high tribute?

Mr. Elliot: No, I do not think so. I do not think it can be said that nobody will save any money if he thinks that there will be a payment coming to him through the Government in his old age. I do not think that merely because the Government are spreading a safety net under the many hazards and contingencies of our industrial life, people will say that because the safety net is there they will jump into it, and not attempt to walk their own path along the edge of the abyss of life or to do the best they can to make some provision for their old age. In spite of all these provisions against destitution, people will do their best in their own way to make some provision for their old age so that they will have the advantage of property of their own, which everybody desires to have. They will not rely entirely upon the provisions that are made in this Measure against a contingency which nobody wants to arise, namely, that in his old age he has no resources and has to find supplementation from the community. The saving instinct is one of the oldest things in life, and it will not be destroyed by anything we do in this Committee. But we are anxious to recognise it and to pay a tribute to it.
I have been asked on what basis I worked in selecting the amount of 5s. I worked on the basis of practice and of such consultations as I was able to have. That does not seem to carry conviction with every hon. Member. Therefore, if the Committee desires, I will choose another figure. I will choose, let us say, the figure which is disregarded in connection with National Health Insurance benefits. There we have a precedent and one on which we have worked successfully; that is to say, I suggest that we should disregard the first 7s. 6d. That would enable us to disregard completely the normal pension of the seamen's fund which was mentioned by the hon. Member for South Shields. [Interruption.] I think it would be most injudicious of the Committee to suggest that the figure should now be further increased. I have stretched the figure as far as I could. The Government are making a concession here because it is a matter which affects the older people and because we are working on a new problem. I ask hon. Members to remember that we are doing this in the midst of great financial stringency when very heavy demands are

being made from every quarter. We are doing it because we believe that the arguments that have been advanced and the discussions that have taken place in the Committee on the examination of this Schedule should not be disregarded, that the wisdom of the Committee should be taken into account, and that we should recognise that the Committee, as a Committee, knows more than any single Member does. The Government have done their best to meet hon. Members, and I hope that hon. Members will accept our proposals in the spirit in which they have been made.

Mr. R. J. Taylor: A specific question was put to the Minister in regard to aged miners. We should be glad to hear whether the aged miners who are provided with free cottages, coal, and so on, will be treated as superannuated persons, and enjoy these privileges.

Mr. Elliot: The advantages which they enjoy either as payments in cash or in kind in respect of services or employment would all be taken into review. A proportion would be disregarded. I will not make any promise as to whether or not it might be possible to go further. In the practice of the Board, allowances in kind, such as free coal, are generally disregarded, I understand, and they might even in this case be disregarded altogether. Such schemes come within the ambit of the Bill.

Mr. Stephen: I thought that the Minister intended to say something about how this was to be arranged in regard to the scales.

Mr. Elliot: We shall have to work upon the regulations. The regulations are based on the Act, but, of course, they go further than the Act. The basic facts are in this Bill, and we shall have to work out the scales of the regulations in conjunction with the advice which we get from various quarters of the House.

9.14 p.m.

Mr. Greenwood: I have listened with interest, but not with approval, to the right hon. Gentleman's speech. He has told us about difficult times. I never heard from hon. Members opposite one word about difficult times when subsidies were being given to certain interests. I never heard one word about a means test when £2 an acre was


being given to people for ploughing up land. These questions were never raised then, but these problems of difficult financial circumstances are invariably emphasised when we are dealing with the human problems which come before this House. I submit that from these benches a devastating case has been made against the principle of the household means test. I submit that in the general discussion which is now concluding no case has been made against the particular proposals which we have put down in order to mitigate the harshness of the operation of the household means test. We have had no answer to the case we have put forward with regard to the household means test in principle. That test has been supported from the other side of the Committee, but we have had no arguments against the particular cases which we have singled out.
We on this side of the Committee realised in times past that thrift was an asset of the Tory party which they deliberately fostered in order to keep the poor poor, but now thrift, the desire on the part of the workers to help themselves, is no longer a virtue. According to the right hon. Gentleman, it is now a semi-vice. We have had no answer to the case which we have argued from this side of the House for years that the household means test creates family differences and creates a situation where people leave the family, so that those less able to help themselves can be left to get the maximum assistance. I remember that in my early days in the Socialist movement we were accused by the Conservatives of desiring to break up family life. They are the people who are doing it. Every time you apply to one social service or another the principle of the household means test, you create divisions in the family life. It is a crime against family life. It is Conservatives who have been guilty of actually breaking up the family, and the right hon. Gentleman now appears as the arch-criminal in this business. We have suggested that unemployment assistance benefit should be left out of account. We have suggested that workmen's compensation should be left out of account. The right hon. Gentleman says, "No," and he comes forward with his one concession on this Bill—it is a concession, though it is not magnificent—that the first 5s. of superannuation pay should not be taken into account.
That concession is in fact an admission of the whole of our case. I want to go back to a point which I have made in this House before. If any body in this country receives any payment from public sources, whether provided partly by themselves or wholly by the State, it is because they suffer a disability. That disability may be unemployment, it may be sickness, it may be physical disability created by industrial accident, or it may be the result of war activities, but any compensation given by the State always has been deemed as an attempt to put back into that individual in terms of money something he has lost, permanently or for a period of time, physically. In other words, if you take as an example disability pensions granted for war service, the purpose of those pensions, grudgingly given, was to pump back into a man certain physical aid which he could not get for himself in the world of industry. When people are in receipt of payments made under Acts of Parliament because they are subnormal in some respect, whether it be because they are sick, disabled or aged, provision which they may have made already for themselves should not be taken into account.
I come back to the question of disabled ex-service men. They were allowed a certain proportion of what they had been paid by the State if they came on the Poor Law. That was an admission that they could not be regarded as physically fit, normal persons and that there was no right to diminish what they had got from the State to make up their deficiencies. When I was accused of introducing the means test, I asked that disabled ex-service men should, in the discretion of the Poor Law authorities, be given special treatment. We have no provision in this Bill for additional special treatment for those persons who are not in all respects normal, except as regards superannuation. The fact that the State has from time to time admitted that the first 7s. 6d. of this, the first £1 of the other, should not be taken into account, really supports the case that we have been trying to make in our various Amendments to Schedule 2. We are profoundly disappointed. We have done our best whenever occasion offered on this Bill to make the strongest resistance to the principle of the household means test, which very few Members on the other


side of the House dared defend in this Committee or in public. We have time and again been beaten on votes. I assume that we shall be beaten on votes again to-night, but that makes no difference to what I said this afternoon. The fight that we have made to prevent the pauperisation of our social services will still continue.
The means test, as it is being applied now, we disagree with even more strongly than we did on Second Reading of this Bill. That principle we shall fight—you may get your Bill—until all honest, respectable citizens of this land are treated with that dignity which we think they are entitled to deserve. We shall therefore press to a Division, and every Division which you, Sir Dennis, call, affecting this principle in detail in order to put on record our detestation of a principle which, we think, is a shameful exhibition on the part of this Government to have produced in time of war. I do not want to press the matter further because multiplicity of words does not necessarily add to cogency of argument. I want the Committee to understand that what has been said on this side of the House has been said with knowledge, with understanding, and with feeling. The right hon. Gentleman's concession we shall accept—we never refuse anything which is given to the poor—but it will make no difference to the Divisions which must subsequently follow.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Horsbrugh): I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 3, to leave out "five shillings," and to insert "seven shillings and sixpence."

9.26 p.m.

Mr. Ede: I gave notice at an earlier stage of the discussion that if the Minister was not prepared to go up to 10s. we should be prepared to move an Amendment to insert "10s.,"but I find that because of the procedure of the House this would be difficult without giving rise to serious misunderstanding. I understand

that you, Sir Dennis, will put first the Question that 5s. should stand part of the Clause. Everybody is agreed that the Minister made a mistake in suggesting "5s.," and presumably "5s."will be unanimously voted out of the Bill. I understand then that the Chair will put the Question that 7s. 6d. should be there inserted. [An Hon. Member: "Another mistake."] It is a mistake, but, as my right hon. Friend has said, it is something given to the poor. I am sure that, if we voted against that, hon. Gentlemen, not in the Committee, but friends in the country at the hustings who would like to join them at a later stage, might misconstrue our action. Since it will not be possible to reach our question of 10s. we desire, however, to put on record the fact that in regard to the 7s. 6d., it is very inadequate, but in all the circumstances we do not intend to vote against it.

Amendment to the proposed Amendment agreed to.

Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

The Chairman: Before this Debate commenced the Committee assented to an arrangement to discuss other Amendments on this subject, and I read out various Amendments I proposed to call for a Division only, covering, I thought, every separate point. It has been pointed out to me that I omitted to number among these Amendments one covering sick pay from friendly societies or trade unions. If it is the desire of hon. Members, I shall be prepared to call, for the purposes of a Division, the next Amendment on the Order Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker).

Mr. Tinker: I beg to move, in page 19, after the words last inserted, to insert:
and as if for paragraph (a) there were substituted the following paragraph:
'(a) the whole of any sick pay or superannuation from a friendly society or trade union shall be disregarded.'

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 129; Noes, 178.

Division No. 38.]
AYES.
[9.35 p.m.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Ammon, C. G.
Banfield, J. W.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Barnes, A. J.


Adamson, W. M.
Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Barr, J.




Beaumont, H. (Batley)
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Pearson, A.


Bevan, A.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.


Broad, F. A.
Hicks, E. G.
Price, M. P.


Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Pritt, D. N.


Buchanan, G.
Hollins, A. (Hanley)
Ridley, G.


Burke, W. A.
Hollins, J. H. (Silvertown)
Riley, B.


Cape, T.
Horabin, T. L.
Ritson, J.


Charleton, H. C.
Isaacs, G. A.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Chater, D.
Jackson, W. F.
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Cluse, W. S.
Jagger, J.
Sexton, T. M.


Cocks, F. S.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Shinwell, E.


Collindridge, F.
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Silkin, L.


Cove, W. G.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Silverman, S. S.


Daggar, G.
Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)


Dalton, H.
Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Davidson. J. J. (Maryhill)
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees-(K'ly)


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Lathan, G.
Sorensen, R. W.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Lawson, J. J.
Stephen, C.


Dobbie, W.
Leach, W.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Leonard, W.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Ede, J. C.
Leslie, J. R.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)
Logan, D. G.
Summerskill, Dr. Edith


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Lunn, W.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Thorne, W.


Foot, D. M.
McEntee, V. La T.
Thurtle, E.


Frankel, D.
Maclean, N.
Tinker, J. J.


Gallacher, W.
Marshall, F.
Tomlinson, G.


Gardner, B. W.
Martin, J. H.
Viant, S. P.


Gibson, R. (Greenock)
Maxton, J.
Walkden, A. G.


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Messer, F.
Watkins, F. C.


Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Montague, F.
Watson, W. McL.


Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
White, H. Graham


Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Wilkinson, Ellen


Groves, T. E.
Mort, D. L.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Muff, G.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Nathan, Colonel H. L.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Hall, W. G. (Colne Valley)
Naylor, T. E.
Woodburn, A.


Hardie, Agnes
Oliver, G. H.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Harris, Sir P. A.
Paling, W.



Harvey, T. E.
Parker, J.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Hayday, A.
Parkinson, J. A.
Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Mathers.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.


Albery, Sir Irving
Davidson, Viscountess
Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.


Anderson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Sc'h Univ's)
Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Holmes, J. S.


Aske, Sir R. W.
De la Bere, R.
Horsbrugh, Florence


Assheton, R.
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Howitt, Dr. A. B.


Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.
Denville, Alfred
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)


Balfour, G. (Hampstead)
Doland, G. F.
Hume, Sir G. H.


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Drewe, C.
Hunter, T.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
Joel, D. J. B.


Beauchamp, Sir B. C.
Duncan, Rt. Hon. Sir A. R.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)


Beechman, N. A.
Duncan, J. A. L, (Kensington, N.)
Kerr, Sir John Graham (Sco'sh Univs.)


Bennett, Sir E. N.
Eckersley, P. T.
Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.


Bernays, R. H.
Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
King-Hall, Commander W. S. R.


Blair, Sir R.
Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C.
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Leech, Sir J. W.


Boulton, W. W.
Ellis, Sir G.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Bracken, B.
Elliston, Capt. G. S.
Levy, T.


Braithwaite, Major A. N. (Buckrose)
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Lindsay, K. M.


Brass, Sir W.
Entwistle, Sir C. F.
Little, Sir E. Graham-


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Everard, Sir William Lindsay
Llewellin, Colonel J. J.


Broadbridge, Sir G. T.
Findlay, Sir E.
Lloyd, G. W.


Brocklebank, Sir Edmund
Fox, Sir G. W. G.
Loftus, P. C.


Brooke, H. (Lewisham, W.)
Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Lucas, Major Sir J. M.


Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
Fyfe, D. P. M.
Lyons, A. M.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)


Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Gledhill, G.
McCorquodale, M. S.


Carver, Major W. H.
Goldie, N. B.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)


Cary, R. A.
Gower, Sir R. V.
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)
McKie, J. H.


Channon, H.
Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)
Maitland, Sir Adam


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Grimston, R. V.
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.


Christie, J. A.
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Sir D. H.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.


Colville, Rt. Hon. John
Hammersley, S. S.
Mitchell, Col. H. (Brentf'd &amp; Chisw'k)


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Hannah, I. C.
Mitcheson, Sir G. G.


Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Morris-Jones, Sir Henry


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Harbord, Sir A.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)


Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.
Haslam, Henry (Horncatle)
Munro, P.


Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page
Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.







Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Sehuster, Sir G. E.
Train, Sir J.


Peake, O.
Selley, H. R.
Tree, A. R. L. F.


Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Shakespeare, G. H.
Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.


Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Procter, Major H. A.
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Fortar)
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan


Radford, E. A.
Shepperson, Sir E. W.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Raikes, H. V. A. M.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Ramsbotham, Rt. Hon. H.
Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.
Warrender, Sir V.


Reed, A. C. (Exeter)
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)
Smithers, Sir W.
Wayland, Sir W. A


Reid, W. Allan (Derby)
Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald
Webbe, Sir W. Harold


Robertson, D.
Somerville, Sir A. A. (Windsor)
Wells, Sir Sydney


Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)
Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)
Storey, S.
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Rowlands, G.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)
Wragg, H.


Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.
Strickland, Captain W. F.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)



Russell, Sir Alexander
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)
Tasker, Sir R. I.
Lieut.-Colonel Kerr and Mr. Buchan-Hepburn.


Samuel, M. R. A.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)



Sandeman, Sir N. S.
Touche, G. C.

Mr. Ness Edwards: I beg to move, in page 19, after the words last inserted, to insert:
"and as if after paragraph (a) the following paragraph were inserted:

'(aa) the whole of any unemployment benefit under the Unemployment Insurance Acts, 1935 to 1939, shall be disregarded.' "

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 128; Noes, 181.

Division No. 39.]
AYES.
[9.43 p.m.


Acland, Sir R. T. D.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Parker, J.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Hall, W. G. (Colne Valley)
Parkinson, J. A.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Hardie, Agnes
Pearson, A.


Adamson, W. M.
Harris, Sir P. A.
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.


Ammon, C. G.
Harvey, T. E.
Price, M. P.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Hayday, A.
Pritt, D. N.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Ridley, G.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Riley, B.


Banfield, J. W.
Hicks, E. G.
Ritson, J.


Barnes. A. J
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Barr, J.
Hollins, A. (Hanley)
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Beaumont, H. (Batley)
Hollins, J. H. (Silvertown)
Sexton, T. M.


Bevan, A.
Horabin, T. L.
Shinwell, E.


Broad, F. A.
Isaacs, G. A.
Silkin, L.


Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Jackson, W. F.
Silverman, S. S.


Buchanan, G.
Jagger, J.
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)


Burke, W. A.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Cape, T.
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees-(K'ly)


Chater, D.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Sorensen, R. W.


Cluse, W. S.
Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Stephen, C.


Cooks, F. S.
Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Collindridge, F.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Cove, W G.
Lathan, G.
Summerskill, Dr. Edith


Daggar, G.
Lawson, J. J.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Dalton, H.
Leach, W.
Thorne, W.


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Leonard, W.
Thurtle, E.


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Leslie, J. R.
Tinker, J. J.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Logan, D. G.
Tomlinson, G.


Dobbie, W.
Lunn, W.
Viant, S. P.


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Walkden, A. G.


Ede, J. C.
McEntee, V. La T.
Watkins, F. C.


Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)
Maclean, N.
Watson, W. McL.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Marshall, F.
White, H. Graham


Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
Martin, J. H.
Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)


Foot, D. M.
Mathers, G.
Wilkinson, Ellen


Frankel, D.
Maxton, J.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Gallacher, W.
Messer, F.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Gardner, B. W.
Montague, F.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Gibson, R. (Greenock)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Woodburn, A.


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Mort, D. L.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Muff, G.



Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Naylor, T. E.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Griffiths, J. (Lianelly)
Oliver, G. H.
Mr. Groves and Mr. Charleton.


Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Paling, W.





NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Assheton, R.
Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)


Albery, Sir Irving
Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.
Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.


Anderson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Sc'h Univ's)
Balfour, G. (Hampstead)
Beauchamp, Sir B. C.




Beechman, N. A.
Goldie, N. B.
Procter, Major H. A.


Bennett, Sir E. N.
Gower, Sir R. V.
Radford, E. A.


Bernays, R. H.
Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)
Raikes, H. V. A. M.


Blair, Sir R.
Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)
Ramsbotham, Rt. Hon. H.


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C.
Grimston, R. V.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)


Boulton, W. W.
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)


Bracken, B.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Sir D. H.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)


Braithwaite, Major A. N. (Buckrose)
Hammersley, S. S.
Robertson, D.


Brass, Sir W.
Hannah, I. C.
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Broadbridge, Sir G. T.
Harbord, Sir A.
Rowlands, G.


Brocklebank, Sir Edmund
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.


Brooke, H. (Lewisham, W.)
Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.


Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Russell, Sir Alexander


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)


Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A.
Holmes, J. S.
Samuel, M. R. A.


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Horsbrugh, Florence
Sandeman, Sir N. S.


Carver, Major W. H.
Howitt, Dr. A. B.
Schuster, Sir G. E.


Cary, R. A.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Selley, H. R.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Hume, Sir G. H.
Shakespeare, G. H.


Channon, H.
Hunter, T.
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Joel, D. J. B.
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)


Christie, J. A.
Jenes, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)
Shepperson, Sir E. W.


Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.


Colville, Rt. Hon. John
Kerr, Sir John Graham (Sco'sh Univs.)
Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
King-Hall, Commander W. S. R.
Smithers, Sir W.


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald


Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.
Leech, Sir J. W.
Somerville, Sir A. A. (Windsor)


Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Levy, T.
Storey, S.


Cross. R. H.
Lindsay, K. M.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Davidson, Viscountess
Little, Sir E. Graham-
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Llewellin, Colonel J. J.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


De la Bère, R.
Lloyd, G. W.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Loftus, P. C.
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Denville, Alfred
Lucas, Major Sir J. M.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)


Dodd, J. S.
Lyons, A. M.
Touche, G. C.


Doland, G. F.
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Train, Sir J.


Drewe, C.
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Tree, A. R. L. F.


Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
McCorquodale, M. S.
Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.


Duggan, H. J.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Duncan, Rt. Hon. Sir A. R.
MacDonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan


Duncan, J. A. L. (Kensington, N.)
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Eckersley, P. T.
McKie, J. H.
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Maitland, Sir Adam
Warrender, Sir V.


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Ellis, Sir G.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Wayland, Sir W. A.


Elliston, Capt. G. S.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Webbe, Sir W. Harold


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Mitchell, Col. H. (Brentf'd &amp; Chisw'k)
Wells, Sir Sydney


Entwistle, Sir C. F.
Mitcheson, Sir G. G.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Everard, Sir William Lindsay
Morris-Jones, Sir Henry
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Findlay, Sir E.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Wragg, H.


Fox, Sir G. W. G.
Munro, P.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.



Fyfe, D. P. M.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Peake, O.
Major Sir James Edmondson and Mr. Buchan-Hepburn.


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.



Gledhill, G.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

Mr. W. Roberts: I beg to move, in page 19, after the words last inserted, to insert:
"and as if after paragraph (a) the following paragraph were inserted:

'(aa) the whole of the income of any grandchildren or great grandchildren.' "

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 129; Noes, 186.

Division No. 40.]
AYES.
[9.53 p.m.


Acland, Sir R. T. D.
Bevan, A.
Daggar, G.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Broad, F. A.
Dalton, H.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)


Adamson, W. M.
Buchanan, G.
Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)


Ammon, C. G.
Burke, W. A.
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Cape, T.
Dobbie, W.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Charleton, H. C.
Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Chater, D
Ede, J. C.


Banfield, J. W.
Cluse, W. S.
Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)


Barnes, A. J.
Cocks, F. S.
Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)


Barr, J.
Collindridge F.
Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)


Beaumont, H. (Batley)
Cove, W. G.
Foot, D. M.




Frankel, D.
Lawson, J. J.
Sexton, T. M.


Gallacher, W.
Leach, W
Shinwell, E.


Gardner, B. W.
Leonard, W.
Silkin, L.


Gibson, R. (Greenock)
Leslie, J. R.
Silverman, S. S.


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Logan, D. G.
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)


Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Lunn, W.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Macdonald, C. (Ince)
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees-(K'ly)


Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
McEntee, V. La T.
Sorensen, R. W.


Groves, T. E.
Maclean, N.
Stephen, C.


Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Marshall, F.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Martin, J. H.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Hall, W. G. (Colne Valley)
Mathers, G.
Summerskill, Dr. Edith


Hardie, Agnes
Maxton, J.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Harvey, T. E.
Messer, F.
Thorne, W.


Hayday, A.
Montague, F.
Thurtle, E.


Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Tinker. J. J.


Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Tomlinson, G.


Hicks, E. G.
Mort, D. L.
Viant, S. P.


Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Muff, G.
Walkden, A. G.


Hollins, A. (Hanley)
Naylor, T. E.
Watkins, F. C.


Hollins, J. H. (Silvertown)
Oliver, G. H.
Watson, W. McL.


Horabin, T. L.
Paling, W.
White, H. Graham


Isaacs, G. A.
Parker, J.
Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)


Jackson, W. F.
Parkinson, J. A.
Wilkinson, Ellen


Jagger, J.
Pearson, A.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Price, M. P.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Pritt, D. N.
Woodburn, A.


Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Ridley, G.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.
Riley, B.



Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Ritson, J.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Lathan, G.
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)
Sir Percy Harris and Mr. Wilfrid Roberts.




NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Drewe, C.
King-Hall, Commander W. S. R.


Albery, Sir Irving
Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
Lamb, Sir J. Q.


Anderson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Sc'h Univ's)
Duggan, H. J.
Leech, Sir J. W.


Assheton, R.
Duncan, Rt. Hon. Sir A. R.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.
Duncan, J. A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Levy, T.


Balfour, G. (Hampstead)
Eckersley P. T.
Lindsay, K. M.


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Little, Sir E. Graham-


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Llewellin, Colonel J. J.


Beauchamp, Sir B. C.
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Lloyd, G. W.


Beechman, N. A.
Ellis, Sir G.
Loftus, P. C.


Bennett, Sir E. N.
Elliston, Capt. G. S.
Lucas, Major Sir J. M.


Bernays, R. H.
Emery, J. F.
Lyons, A. M.


Bird, Sir R. B.
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)


Blair, Sir R.
Entwistle, Sir C. F.
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C.
Everard, Sir William Lindsay
McCorquodale, M. S.


Boulton, W. W.
Findlay, Sir E.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)


Bracken, B.
Fox, Sir G. W. G.
MacDonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)


Braithwaite, Major A. N. (Buckrose)
Fremantle, Sir F. E.
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.


Brass, Sir W.
Fyfe, D. P. M.
McKie, J. H.


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Maitland, Sir Adam


Broadbridge, Sir G. T.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.


Brocklebank, Sir Edmund
Gledhill, G.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Brooke, H. (Lewisham, W.)
Goldie, N. B.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.


Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
Gower, Sir R. V.
Mitchell, Col. H. (Brentf'd &amp; Chisw'k)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)
Mitcheson, Sir G. G.


Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A.
Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)
Moore-Brabazon, Lt.-Col. J. T. C.


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Grimston, R. V.
Morris-Jones, Sir Henry


Carver, Major W. H.
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)


Cary, R. A.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Sir D. H.
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Hammersley, S. S.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.


Channon, H.
Hannah, I. C
Peake, O.


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Christie, J. A.
Harbord, Sir A.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Procter, Major H. A.


Colville, Rt. Hon. John
Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.
Radford, E. A.


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Raikes, H. V. A. M.


Cooper, Rt. Hon. T. M. (E'burgh, W.)
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-
Ramsbotham, Rt. Hon. H.


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)


Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.
Holmes, J. S.
Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)


Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page
Horsbrugh, Florence
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Howitt, Dr. A. B.
Robertson, D.


Cross, R. H.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)


Davidson, Viscountess
Hume, Sir G. H.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Hunter, T.
Rowlands, G.


De. la Bère, R.
Joel, D. J. B.
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.


Denville, Alfred
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)
Russell, Sir Alexander


Dodd, J. S.
Kerr, Sir John Graham (Sco'sh Univs.)
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)


Doland, G. F.
Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.
Samuel, M. R. A.







Sandeman, Sir N. S.
Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Schuster, Sir G. E.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Selley, H. R.
Storey, S.
Warrender, Sir V.


Shakespeare, G. H.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)
Strickland, Captain W. F.
Wayland, Sir W. A.


Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.
Webbe, Sir W. Harold


Shepperson, Sir E. W.
Tasker, Sir R. I.
Wells, Sir Sydney


Shute, Colonel Sir J. J.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.
Touche, G. C.
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.
Train, Sir J.
Wragg, H.


Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)
Tree, A. R. L. F.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Smithers, Sir W.
Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.



Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Somerville, Sir A. A. (Windsor)
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan
Mr. James Stuart and Mr. Munro.

Mr. George Hall: I beg to move, in page 19, after the words last inserted, to insert:
"and as if for paragraph (b) there were substituted the following paragraph:

'(b) the whole of any wounds or disability pension shall be disregarded.' "

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 130; Noes, 187.

Division No. 41.]
AYES.
[10.0 p.m.


Acland, Sir R. T. D.
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Paling, W.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Parker, J.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Hall, W. G. (Colne Valley)
Parkinson, J. A.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Hardie, Agnes
Pearson, A.


Ammon, C. G.
Harris, Sir P. A.
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Harvey, T. E.
Price, M. P.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Hayday, A.
Pritt, D. N.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Ridley, G.


Banfield, J. W.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Riley, B.


Barnes, A. J.
Hicks, E. G.
Ritson, J.


Barr, J.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Beaumont, H. (Batley)
Hollins, A. (Hanley)
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Bevan, A.
Hollins, J. H. (Silvertown)
Sexton, T. M.


Broad, F. A.
Horabin, T. L.
Shinwell, E.


Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Isaacs, G. A.
Silkin, L.


Buchanan, G.
Jackson, W. F.
Silverman, S. S.


Burke, W. A.
Jagger, J.
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)


Cape, T.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Charleton, H. C.
Jenkins, Sir W.(Neath)
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)


Chater, D.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Sorensen, R. W.


Cluse, W. S.
Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Stephen, C.


Cocks, F. S.
Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Collindridge, F.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Cove, W. G.
Lathan, G.
Summerskill, Dr. Edith


Daggar, G.
Lawson, J. J.
Thorne, W.


Dalton, H.
Leach, W.
Thurtle, E.


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Leonard, W.
Tinker, J. J.


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Leslie, J. R.
Tomlinson, G.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Logan, D. G.
Viant, S. P.


Dobbie, W.
Lunn, W.
Walkden, A. G.


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Watkins, F. C.


Ede, J. C
McEntee, V. La T.
Watson, W. McL.


Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)
Maclean, N.
White, H. Graham


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Marshall, F.
Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)


Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
Martin, J. H.
Wilkinson, Ellen


Foot, D. M.
Mathers, G.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Frankel, D.
Maxton, J.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Gallacher, W.
Messer, F.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Gardner, B. W.
Montague, F.
Woodburn, A.


Gibson, R. (Greenock)
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)



Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Mort, D. L.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Muff, G.
Mr. Adamson and Mr. R. J. Taylor.


Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Naylar, T. E.



Groves, T. E.
Oliver, G. H.





NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Beechman, N. A.
Brass, Sir W.


Albery, Sir Irving
Bennett, Sir E. N.
Briscoe, Capt. R. G.


Anderson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Sc'h Univ's)
Bernays, R. H.
Broadbridge, Sir G. T.


Assheton, R.
Bird, Sir R. B.
Brocklebank, Sir Edmund


Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.
Blair, Sir R.
Brooke, H. (Lewisham, W.)


Balfour, G. (Hampstead)
Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C.
Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Boulton, W. W.
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Bracken, B.
Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A.


Beauchamp, Sir B. C.
Braithwaite, Major A. N. (Buckrose)
Campbell, Sir E. T.




Carver, Major W. H.
Harbord, Sir A.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)


Cary, R. A.
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)


Channon, H.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Robertson, D.


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)


Christie, J. A.
Holmes, J. S.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Horsbrugh, Florence
Rowlands, G.


Colville, Rt. Hon. John
Howitt, Dr. A. B.
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.


Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
Russell, Sir Alexander


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Hume, Sir G. H.
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)


Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.
Hunter, T.
Salter, Sir J. Arthur (Oxford U.)


Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page
Joel, D. J. B.
Samuel, M. R. A.


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)
Sandeman, Sir N. S.


Cross, R. H.
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)
Schuster, Sir G. E.


Davidson, Viscountess
Kerr, Sir John Graham (Sco'sh Univs.)
Selley, H. R.


Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.
Shakespeare, G. H.


De la Bère, R.
King-Hall, Commander W. S. R.
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)


Denville, Alfred
Leech, Sir J. W.
Shepperson, Sir E. W.


Dodd, J. S.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Shute, Colonel Sir J. J.


Doland, G. F.
Levy, T.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.


Drewe, C.
Lindsay, K. M.
Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.


Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
Little, Sir E. Graham-
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


Duggan, H. J.
Llewellin, Colonel J. J.
Smithers, Sir W.


Duncan, Rt. Hon. Sir A. R.
Lloyd, G. W.
Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald


Duncan, J. A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Loftus, P. C.
Somerville, Sir A. A. (Windsor)


Eckersley, P. T.
Lucas, Major Sir J. M.
Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.


Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Lyons, A. M.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Storey, S.


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Ellis, Sir G.
McCorquodale, M. S.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Elliston, Capt. G. S.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Emery, J. F.
MacDonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)


Entwistle, Sir C. F.
McKie, J. H.F
Thomas, J. P. L.


Everard, Sir William Lindsay
Maitland, Sir Adam
Touche, G. C.


Findlay, Sir E.
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.
Train, Sir J.


Fox, Sir G. W. G.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Tree, A. R. L. F.


Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.


Fyfe, D. P. M.
Mitchell, Col. H. (Brentf'd &amp; Chisw'k)
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Mitcheson, Sir G. G.
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.
Moore-Brabazon, Lt.-Col. J. T. C.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Gledhill, G.
Morris-Jones, Sir Henry
Warrender, Sir V.


Goldie, N. B.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Waterhouse. Captain C.


Gower, Sir R. V.
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.
Wayland, Sir W. A


Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Webbe, Sir W. Harold


Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)
Peake, O.
Wells, Sir Sydney


Grimston, R. V.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Gritten, W. G. Howard
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Hacking, Rt. Hon. Sir D. H.
Procter, Major H. A.
Wragg, H.


Hammersley, S. S.
Radford, E. A.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Hannah, I. C.
Raikes, H. V. A. M.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Ramsbotham, Rt. Hon. H.
Mr. James Stuart and Mr. Munro

Mr. G. Griffiths: I beg to move, in page 19, after the words last inserted, to insert:
"and as if for paragraph (c) there were substituted the following paragraph:
'(c) the whole of any weekly payment by way of compensation under the enactments

relating to workmen's compensation shall be disregarded.' "

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 131; Noes, 188.

Division No. 42.]
AYES.
[10.9 p.m.


Acland, Sir R. T. D.
Buchanan, G.
Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)


Adams, D. (Consett)
Burke, W. A.
Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Cape, T.
Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)


Adamson, W. M.
Chater, D.
Foot, D. M.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Cluse, W. S.
Frankel, D.


Ammon, C. G
Cocks, F. S.
Gallachar, W.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Collindridge, F.
Gardner, B. W.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Cove, W. G.
Gibson, R. (Greenock)


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R
Daggar, G.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.


Banfield, J. W.
Dalton, H.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)


Barnes, A. J.
Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)


Barr, J.
Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Griffiths. J. (Llanelly)


Beaumont, H. (Batley)
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)


Bevan, A.
Dobbie, W.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)


Broad, F. A.
Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Hall, W. G. (Colne Valley)


Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Ede, J. C.
Hardie, Agnes




Harris, Sir P. A.
Marshall, F.
Sloan, A.


Harvey, T. E.
Martin, J. H.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Hayday, A.
Mathers, G.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)


Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Maxton, J.
Sorenson, R. W.


Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Messer, F.
Stephen, C.


Hicks, E. G.
Montague, F.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Hollins, A. (Hanley)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Summerskill, Dr. Edith


Hollins, J. H. (Silvertown)
Mort, D. L.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Horabin, T. L.
Muff, G.
Thorne, W.


Isaacs, G. A.
Naylor, T. E.
Thurtle, E.


Jackson, W. F.
Oliver, G. H.
Tinker, J. J.


Jagger, J.
Paling, W.
Tomlinson, G.


Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Parker, J.
Viant, S. P.


Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Parkinson, J. A.
Walkden, A. G.


Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Pearson, A.
Watkins, F. C.


Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Watson, W. McL.


Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.
Price, M. P.
White, H. Graham


Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Pritt, D. N.
Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)


Lathan, G.
Ridley, G.
Wilkinson, Ellen


Lawson, J. J.
Riley, B.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Leach W.
Ritson, J.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Leonard, W.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Leslie, J. R.
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)
Woodburn, A.


Logan, D. G.
Sexton, T. M.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Lunn, W.
Shinwell, E.



Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Silkin, L.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


McEntee, V. La T.
Silverman, S. S.
Mr. Groves and Mr. Charleton.


Maclean, N.
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)





NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Duncan, J. A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Lucas, Major Sir J. M.


Albery, Sir Irving
Eckersley, P. T.
Lyons, A. M.


Anderson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Sc'h Univ's)
Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)


Assheton, R.
Edmondson, Major Sir J.
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.


Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
McCorquodale, M. S.


Balfour, G. (Hampstead)
Ellis, Sir G.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Elliston, Capt. G. S.
MacDonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Emery, J. F.
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.


Beauchamp, Sir B. C.
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
McKie, J. H.


Beechman, N. A.
Entwistle, Sir C. F.
Maitland, Sir Adam


Bennett, Sir E. N.
Everard, Sir William Lindsay
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.


Bernays, R. H.
Findlay, Sir E.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Bird, Sir R. B.
Fox, Sir G. W. G.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.


Blair, Sir R.
Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Mitchell, Col. H. (Brentf'd &amp; Chisw'k)


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C.
Fyfe, D. P. M.
Mitcheson, Sir G. G.


Boulton, W. W.
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Moore-Brabazon, Lt.-Col. J. T. C.


Bracken, B.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.
Morris, J. P. (Salford, N.)


Braithwaite, Major A. N. (Buckrose)
Gledhill, G.
Morris-Jones, Sir Henry


Brass, Sir W.
Goldie, N. B.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Gower, Sir R. V.
Munro, P.


Broadbridge, Sir G. T.
Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.


Brocklebank, Sir Edmund
Greene, W. P. C (Worcester)
Orr-Ewing, I. L.


Brooke, H. (Lewisham, W.)
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Peake, O.


Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Sir D. H.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Hammersley, S. S.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A.
Hannah, I. C.
Procter, Major H. A.


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Radford, E. A.


Carver, Major W. H.
Harbord, Sir A.
Ralkes, H. V. A. M.


Cary, R. A.
Haslam, H. C. (Horncastle)
Ramsbotham, Rt. Hon. H.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)


Channon, H.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Holmes, J. S.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)


Christie, J. A.
Horsbrugh, Florence
Robertson, D.


Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Howitt, Dr. A. B.
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)


Colville, Rt. Hon. John
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
Rowlands, G.


Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburg, W.)
Hume, Sir G. H.
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Hunter, T.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.


Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.
Joel, D. J. B.
Russell, Sir Alexander


Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)
Salter, Sir J. Arthur (Oxford U.)


Cross, R. H.
Kerr, Sir John Graham (Sco'sh Univs.)
Samuel, M. R. A.


Davidson, Viscountess
Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.
Sandeman, Sir N. S.


Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
King-Hall, Commander W. S. R.
Schuster, Sir G. E.


De la Bère, R.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Selley, H. R.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Leech, Sir J. W.
Shakespeare, G. H.


Denville, Alfred
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)


Dodd, J. S.
Levy, T.
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)


Doland, G. F.
Lindsay, K. M.
Shepperson, Sir E. W.


Drewe, C.
Little, Sir E. Graham-
Shute, Colonel Sir J. J.


Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
Llewellin, Colonel J. J.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.


Duggan, H. J.
Lloyd, G. W.
Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.


Duncan, Rt. Hon. Sir A. R.
Loftus. P. C.
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)







Smithers, Sir W.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)
Wayland, Sir W. A.


Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald
Thomas, J. P. L.
Webbe, Sir W. Harold


Somorville, Sir A. A. (Windsor)
Touche. G. C.
Wells, Sir Sydney


Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.
Train, Sir J.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)
Tree, A. R. L. F.
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Storey, S.
Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.
Wragg, H.


Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Strickland, Captain W. F.
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan



Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.
Warrender, Sir V.
Mr. Grimston and Mr. Buchan-Hepburn.


Tasker, Sir R. I.
Waterhouse, Captain C.

Mr. Whiteley: I beg to move, in page 19, after the words last inserted, to insert:
"and as if after paragraph (c) the following paragraph were inserted:
'(cc) free housing accommodation, relief from rates, free supply of coal, or any

similar assistance received from a charitable organisation shall be disregarded.' "

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 128; Noes, 189.

Division No. 43.]
AYES.
[10.20 p.m.


Acland, Sir R. T. D.
Groves, T. E.
Oliver, G. H.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Paling, W.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Parker, J.


Adamson, W. M.
Hall, W. G. (Colne Valley)
Parkinson, J. A.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Hardie, Agnes
Pearson, A.


Ammon, C. G.
Harris, Sir P. A.
Pethick-Lawrenee, Rt. Hon. F. W.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Harvey, T. E.
Price, M. P.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Hayday, A.
Pritt, D. N.


Banfield, J. W.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Ridley, G.


Barnes, A. J.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Riley, B.


Barr, J
Hicks, E. G.
Ritson, J.


Beaumont, H. (Batley)
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Bevan, A.
Hollins, A. (Hanley)
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Broad, F. A.
Hollins, J. H. (Silvertown)
Sexton, T. M.


Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Horabin, T. L.
Silkin, L.


Buchanan, G.
Isaacs, G. A.
Silverman, S. S.


Burke, W. A.
Jackson, W. F.
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)


Cape, T.
Jagger, J.
Sloan, A.


Charleton, H. C.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Chater, D.
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)


Cluse, W. S.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Sorensen, R. W.


Cocks, F. S.
Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Stephen, C.


Collindridge, F.
Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Cove, W. G.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Daggar, G.
Lathan, G.
Summerskill, Dr. Edith


Dalton, H.
Lawson, J. J.
Thorne, W.


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Leach, W.
Thurtle, E.


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Leonard, W.
Tinker, J. J.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Leslie, J. R.
Tomlinson, G.


Dobbie, W.
Logan, D. G.
Viant, S. P.


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Lunn, W.
Walkden, A. G.


Ede, J. C.
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Watkins, F. C.


Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)
McEntee, V. La T.
Watson, W. McL.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Maclean, N.
White, H. Graham


Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
Marshall, F.
Wilkinson, Ellen


Foot, D. M.
Martin, J. H.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Frankel, D.
Mathers, G.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Gallacher, W.
Maxton, J.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Gardner, B. W.
Messer, F.
Woodburn, A.


Gibson, R. (Greenock)
Montague, F.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)



Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Mort, D. L.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Muff, G.
Mr. Whiteley and Mr. R. J. Taylor


Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Naylor, T. E.





NOES.


Acland-Troyte Lt.-Col. G. J.
Bird, Sir R. B.
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)


Albery, Sir Irving
Blair, Sir R.
Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A.


Anderson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Sc'h Univ's)
Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C.
Campbell, Sir E. T.


Assheton, R.
Boulton, W. W.
Carver, Major W. H.


Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.
Bracken, B.
Cary, R. A.


Balfour, G. (Hampstead)
Braithwaite, Major A. N. (Buckrose)
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Brass, Sir W.
Channon, H.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)


Beauchamp, Sir B. C.
Broadbridge, Sir G. T.
Christie, J. A.


Beechman, N. A.
Brocklebank, Sir Edmund
Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)


Bennett, Sir E. N.
Brooke, H. (Lewisham, W.)
Colville, Rt. Hon. John


Bernays, R. H.
Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)




Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.
Hume, Sir G. H.
Rowlands, G.


Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page
Hunter, T.
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C
Joel, D. J. B.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.


Cross, R. H.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)
Russell, Sir Alexander


Davidson, Viscountess
Kerr, Sir John Graham (Sco'sh Univs.)
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)


Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.
Salter, Sir J. Arthur (Oxford U.)


De la Bère, R.
King-Hall, Commander W. S. R.
Samuel, M. R. A.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Sandeman, Sir N. S.


Denville, Alfred
Leech, Sir J. W.
Schuster, Sir G. E.


Dodd, J. S.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Selley, H. R.


Doland, G. F.
Levy, T.
Shakespeare, G. H.


Drewe, C.
Lindsay, K. M.
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)


Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
Little, Sir E. Graham-
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)


Duggan, H. J.
Llewellin, Colonel J. J.
Shepperson, Sir E. W.


Duncan, Rt. Hon. Sir A. R.
Lloyd, G. W.
Shute, Colonel Sir J. J.


Duncan, J. A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Loftus, P. C.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.


Eckersley, P. T.
Lucas, Major Sir J. M.
Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.


Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Lyons, A. M.
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Smithers, Sir W.


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald


Ellis, Sir G.
McCorquodale, M. S.
Somerville, Sir A. A. (Windsor)


Elliston, Capt. G. S.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)
Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.


Emery, J. F.
MacDonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
Storey, S.


Entwistle, Sir C. F.
McKie, J. H.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Everard, Sir William Lindsay
Maitland, Sir Adam
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Findlay, Sir E.
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Fox, Sir G. W. G
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Fyfe, D. P. M.
Mitchell, Col. H. (Brentf'd &amp; Chisw'k)
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Mitcheson, Sir G. G.
Thomas, J. P. L.


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.
Moore-Brabazon, Lt.-Col. J. T. C.
Touche, G. C.


Gledhill, G.
Morris, J. P. (Salford, N.)
Train, Sir J.


Goldie, N. B.
Morris-Jones, Sir Henry
Tree, A. R. L. F.


Gower, Sir R. V.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.


Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)
Munro, P.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Cammander R. L.


Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan


Gritten, W. G. Howard
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Hacking, Rt. Hon. Sir D. H.
Peake, O.
Warrender, Sir V.


Hammersley, S. S.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Hannah, I. C.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Wayland, Sir W. A


Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Procter, Major H. A.
Webbe, Sir W. Harold


Harbord, Sir A.
Radford, E. A.
Wells, Sir Sydney


Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Raikes, H. V. A. M.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.
Ramsbotham, Rt. Hon. H.
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Ramsden, Sir E.
Wragg, H.


Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Holmes, J. S.
Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Horsbrugh, Florenece
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)
Lieut.-Colonel Kerr and Mr. Grimston.


Howitt, Dr. A. B.
Robertson, D.

Mr. E. J. Williams: I beg to move, in page 19, after the words last inserted, to insert:
"and as if in paragraph (d) for the words 'twenty-five pounds,' wherever those words

occur there were substituted the words 'one hundred pounds.' "

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 131; Noes, 185.

Division No. 44.]
AYES.
[10.29 p.m.


Acland, Sir R. T. D.
Charleton, H. C.
Gallacher, W.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Chater, D.
Gardner, B. W.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Cluse, W. S.
Gibson, R. (Greenock)


Adamson, W. M.
Cocks, F. S.
Greenwood, Rt Hon. A.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Collindridge, F.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)


Ammon, C. G.
Cove, W. G.
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Daggar, G.
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)


Aske, Sir R. W.
Dalton, H.
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)


Banfield, J. W.
Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Hall, W. G. (Colne Valley)


Barnes, A. J.
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Hardie, Agnes


Barr, J.
Dobbie, W.
Harris, Sir P. A.


Beaumont, H. (Batley)
Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Harvey, T. E.


Bevan, A.
Ede, J. C.
Hayday, A.


Broad, F. A.
Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)


Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)


Buchanan, G.
Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
Hicks, E. G.


Burke, W. A.
Foot, D. M.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)


Cape, T.
Frankel, D.
Hollins, A. (Hanley)




Hollins, J. H. (Silvertown)
Montague, F.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)


Horabin, T. L.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Sorensen, R. W.


Isaacs, G. A.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Stephen, C.


Jackson, W. F.
Mort, D. L.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Jagger, J.
Muff, G.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Naylor, T. E.
Summerskill, Dr. Edith


Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Oliver, G. H.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Paling, W.
Thurtle, E.


Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Parker, J.
Tinker, J. J.


Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.
Parkinson, J. A.
Tomlinson, G.


Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Pearson, A.
Viant, S. P.


Lathan, G.
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Walkden, A. G.


Lawson, J. J.
Price, M. P.
Watkins, F. C.


Leach, W.
Pritt, D. N.
Watson, W. McL.


Leonard, W.
Ridley, G.
White, H. Graham


Leslie, J. R.
Riley, B.
Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)


Logan, D. G.
Ritson, J.
Wilkinson, Ellen


Lunn, W.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)
Williams, E. J. (Ogrmore)


Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


McEntee, V. La T.
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)
Windsor,W. (Hull, C.)


Maclean, N.
Sexton, T. M.
Woodburn, A.


Marshall, F.
Silkin, L.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Martin, J. H.
Silverman, S. S.



Maxton, J.
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Messer, F.
Sloan, A.
Mr. Mathers and Mr. Groves.


Milner, Major J.
Smith, E. (Stoke)





NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Edmondson, Major Sir J.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)


Albery, Sir Irving
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
MacDonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)


Anderson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Sc'h Univ's)
Ellis, Sir G.
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.


Assheton, R.
Elliston, Capt. G. S.
McKie, J. H.


Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.
Emery, J. F.
Maitland, Sir Adam


Balfour, G. (Hampstead)
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Entwistle, Sir C. F.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Everard, Sir William Lindsay
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.


Beauchamp, Sir B. C.
Findlay, Sir E.
Mitchell, Col. H. (Brentf'd &amp; Chisw'k)


Beechman, N. A.
Fox, Sir G. W. G.
Mitcheson, Sir G. G.


Bennett, Sir E. N.
Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Moore-Brabazon, Lt.-Col. J. T. C.


Bernays, R. H.
Fyfe, D. P. M.
Morris-Jones, Sir Henry


Bird, Sir R. B.
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)


Blair, Sir R.
Gibson, Sir C. G. (Pudsey and Otley)
Munro, P.


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.


Boulton, W. W.
Gledhill, G.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.


Bracken, B.
Goldie, N. B.
Peake, O.


Braithwaite, Major A. N. (Buckrose)
Gower, Sir R. V.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Brass, Sir W.
Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)
Procter, Major H. A.


Broadbridge, Sir G. T.
Grimston, R. V.
Radford, E. A.


Brooklebank, Sir Edmund
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Sir D. H.
Raikes, H. V. A. M.


Brooke, H. (Lewisham, W.)
Hammersley, S. S.
Ramsbotham, Rt. Hon. H.


Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
Hannah, I. C.
Ramsden, Sir E.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Hannon, Sir P. J. H
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)


Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A.
Harbord, Sir A.
Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)


Carver, Major W. H.
Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.
Robertson, D.


Cary, R. A.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Channon, H.
Holmes, J. S.
Rowlands, G.


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Horsbrugh, Florence
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.


Christie, J. A.
Howitt, Dr. A. B.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.


Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Russell, Sir Alexander


Colville, Rt. Hon. John
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
Salter, Sir J. Arthur (Oxford U.)


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Hume, Sir G. H.
Samuel, M. R. A.


Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Hunter, T.
Sandeman, Sir N. S.


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Joel, D. J. B.
Schuster, Sir G. E.


Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)
Selley, H. R.


Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page
Kerr, Sir John Graham (Sco'sh Univs.)
Shakespeare, G. H.


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)


Cross, R. H.
King-Hall, Commander W. S. R.
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)


Davidson, Viscountess
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Shepperson, Sir E. W.


Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Leech, Sir J. W.
Shute, Colonel Sir J. J.


De la Bère, R.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Levy, T.
Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.


Denville, Alfred
Lindsay, K. M.
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


Dodd, J. S.
Little, Sir E. Graham-
Smithers, Sir W.


Doland, G. F.
Llewellin, Colonel J. J.
Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald


Drewe, C.
Lloyd, G. W.
Somerville, Sir A. A. (Windsor)


Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
Loftus, P. C.
Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.


Duggan, H. J.
Lucas, Major Sir J. M.
Storey, S.


Duncan, Rt. Hon. Sir A. R.
Lyons, A. M.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Duncan, J. A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Eckersley, P. T.
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
McCorquodale, M. S
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)







Thomas, J. P. L.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Touche, G. C.
Warrander, Sir V.
Wragg, H.


Train, Sir J.
Waterhouse, Captain C.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Tree, A. R. L. F.
Wayland, Sir W. A.



Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.
Webbe, Sir W. Harold
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.
Wells, Sir Sydney
Mr. James Stuart and Lieut.-Colonel Kerr.


Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan
Williams, C. (Torquay)

Mr. David Adams: I beg to move, in page 19, after the words last inserted, to insert:
"and as if for paragraph (e) there were substituted the following paragraph:l
'(e) any interest in the dwelling house in which he resides shall be disregarded.' "

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 132; Noes, 183.

Division No. 45.]
AYES.
[10.38 p.m.


Acland, Sir R. T. D.
Hall, W. G. (Colne Valley)
Parker, J.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Hardie, Agnes
Parkinson, J. A.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Harris, Sir P. A.
Pearson, A.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Harvey, T. E.
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.


Ammon, C. G.
Hayday, A.
Price, M. P.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Pritt, D. N.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Ridley, G.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Hicks, E. G.
Riley, B.


Banfield, J. W.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Ritson, J.


Barnes, A. J.
Hollins, A. (Hanley)
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Barr, J.
Hollins, J. H. (Silvertown)
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Beaumont, H. (Batley)
Horabin, T. L.
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)


Bevan, A.
Isaacs, G. A.
Sexton, T. M.


Broad, F. A.
Jackson, W. F.
Silkin, L.


Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Jagger, J.
Silverman, S. S.


Buchanan, G.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)


Burke, W. A.
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Sloan, A.


Cape, T.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Chater, D.
Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Cluse, W. S.
Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)


Cocks, F. S.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Sorensen, R. W.


Collindridge, F.
Lathan, G.
Stephen, C.


Cove, W. G.
Lawson, J. J.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Daggar, G.
Leach, W.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Dalton, H.
Leonard, W.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Leslie, J. R.
Summerskill, Dr. Edith


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Logan, D. G.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Lunn, W.
Thurtle, E.


Dobbie, W.
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Tinker, J. J.


Dunn, E. (Rohter Valley)
McEntee, V. La T.
Tomlinson, G.


Ede, J. C.
Maclean, N.
Viant, S. P.


Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)
Marshall, F.
Walkden, A. G.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwelty)
Martin, J. H.
Watkins, F. C.


Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
Mathers, G.
Watson, W. McL.


Frankel, D.
Maxton, J.
White, H. Graham


Gallacher, W.
Messer, F.
Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)


Gardner, B. W.
Milner, Major J.
Wilkinson, Ellen


Gibson, R. (Greenock)
Montague, F.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Mort, D. L.
Woodburn, A.


Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Muff, G.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Groves, T. E.
Naylor, T. E.



Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Oliver, G. H.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Paling, W.
Mr. Charleton and Mr. Adamson




NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Bracken, B.
Christie, J. A.


Albery, Sir Irving
Braithwaite, Major A. N. (Buckrose)
Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)


Anderson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Sc'h Univ's)
Brass, Sir W.
Colville, Rt. Hon. John


Assheton, R.
Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)


Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.
Broadbridge, Sir G. T.
Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)


Balfour, G. (Hampstead)
Brocklebank, Sir Edmund
Courtauld, Major J. S.


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Brooke, H. (Lewisham, W.)
Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page


Beauchamp, Sir B. C.
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.


Beechman, N. A.
Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A.
Cross, R. H.


Bennett, Sir E. N.
Campbell, Sir E. T.
Davidson, Viscountess


Bernays, R. H.
Carver, Major W. H.
Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)


Bird, Sir R. B.
Cary, R. A.
De la Bère, R.


Blair, Sir R.
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Denman, Hon. R. D.


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C.
Channon, H,
Denville, Alfred


Boulton, W. W.
Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Dodd, J. S.




Doland, G. F.
Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.


Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
King-Hall, Commander W. S. R.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.


Duggan, H. J.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Russell, Sir Alexander


Duncan, Rt. Hon. Sir A. R.
Leech, Sir J. W.
Salter, Sir J. Arthur (Oxford U.)


Duncan, J. A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Samuel, M. R. A.


Eckersley, P. T.
Levy, T.
Sandeman, Sir N. S.


Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Lindsay, K. M.
Schuster, Sir G. E.


Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Little, Sir E. Graham-
Selley, H. R.


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Llewellin, Colonel J. J.
Shakespeare, G. H.


Ellis, Sir G.
Lloyd, G. W.
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)


Elliston, Capt. G. S.
Loftus, P. C.
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)


Emery, J, F.
Lucas, Major Sir J. M.
Shepperson, Sir E. W.


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Lyons, A. M.
Shute, Colonel Sir J. J.


Entwistle, Sir C. F.
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.


Everard, Sir William Lindsay
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.


Findlay, Sir E.
McCorquodale, M. S.
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


Fox, Sir G. W. G.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)
Smithers, Sir W.


Fremantle, Sir F. E.
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald


Fyfe, D. P. M.
McKie, J. H.
Somerville, Sir A. A. (Windsor)


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Maitland, Sir Adam
Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.


Gibson, Sir C. G. (Pudsey and Otley)
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.
Storey, S.


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Gledhill, G.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Goldie, N. B.
Mitchell, Col. H. (Brentf'd &amp; Chisw'k)
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Gower, Sir R. V.
Mitcheson, Sir G. G.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)
Moore-Brabazon, Lt.-Col. J. T. C.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)


Grimston, R. V.
Morris, J. P. (Salford, N.)
Thomas, J. P. L.


Hacking, Rt. Hon. Sir D. H.
Morris-Jones, Sir Henry
Touche, G. C.


Hammersley, S. S.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Train, Sir J.


Hannah, I. C.
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.
Tree, A. R. L. F.


Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.


Harbord, Sir A.
Peake, O.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan


Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Procter, Major H. A.
Warrender, Sir V.


Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-
Radford, E. A.
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Holmes, J. S.
Raikes, H. V. A. M.
Wayland, Sir W. A.


Horsbrugh, Florence
Ramsbotham, Rt. Hon. H.
Webbe, Sir W. Harold


Howitt, Dr. A. B.
Ramsden, Sir E.
Wells, Sir Sydney


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Hume, Sir G. H.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)
Wragg, H.


Hunter, T.
Robertson, D.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Joel, D. J. B.
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES—


Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)
Lieut.-Colonel Kerr and Mr. Munro.


Kerr, Sir John Graham (Sco'sh Univs.)
Rowlands, G.

Mr. Jenkins: I beg to move, in page 19, line 33, column 2, to leave out from "pension," to "Sub-section," in line 46.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 193; Noes, 115.

Division No. 46.]
AYES.
[10.47 p.m.


Acland, Sir R. T. D.
Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A.
Duncan, J. A. L. (Kensington, N.)


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Campbell, Sir E. T.
Eckersley, P. T.


Albery, Sir Irving
Carver, Major W. H.
Eden, Rt. Hon. A.


Anderson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Sc'h Univ's)
Cary, R. A.
Edmondson, Major Sir J.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.


Assheton, R.
Channon, H.
Ellis, Sir G.


Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.
Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Elliston, Capt. G. S.


Balfour, G. (Hampstead)
Christie, J. A.
Emery, J. F.


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Emrys-Evans, P. V.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Colville, Rt. Hon. John
Entwistle, Sir C. F.


Beechman, N. A.
Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Everard, Sir William Lindsay


Bennett, Sir E. N.
Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Findlay, Sir E.


Bernays, R. H.
Courtauld, Major J. S.
Fox, Sir G. W. G.


Bird, Sir R. B.
Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.
Fremantle, Sir F. E.


Blair, Sir R.
Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page
Fyfe, D. P. M.


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C.
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)


Boulton, W. W.
Cross, R. H.
Gibson, Sir C. G. (Pudsey and Otley)


Bracken, B.
Davidson, Viscountess
Gledhill, G.


Braithwaite, Major A. N. (Buckrose)
Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Goldie, N. B.


Brass, Sir W.
De la Bère, R.
Gower, Sir R. V.


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)


Broadbridge, Sir G. T.
Denville, Alfred
Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)


Brocklebank, Sir Edmund
Dodd, J. S.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)


Brooke, H. (Lewisham, W.)
Doland, G. F.
Grimston, R. V.


Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Sir D. H.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Duncan, Rt. Hon. Sir A. R.
Hammersley, S. S.




Hannah, I. C.
Maitland, Sir Adam
Shepperson, Sir E. W.


Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.
Shute, Colonel Sir J. J.


Harbord, Sir A.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.


Harris, Sir P. A.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)


Harvey, T. E.
Mitchell, Col. H. (Brentf'd &amp; Chisw'k)
Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.


Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Mitcheson, Sir G. G.
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.
Moore-Brabazon, Lt.-Col. J. T. Q.
Smithers, Sir W.


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P
Morris, J. P. (Salford, N.)
Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald


Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-
Morris-Jones, Sir Henry
Somerville, Sir A. A. (Windsor)


Holmes, J. S.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.


Horabin, T. L.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Horsbrugh, Florence
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.
Storey, S.


Howitt, Dr. A. B.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Peake, O.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Hume, Sir G. H.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Hunter, T.
Procter, Major H. A.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)


Joel, D. J. B.
Radford. E. A.
Thomas, J. P. L.


Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)
Raikes, H. V. A. M.
Touche, G. C.


Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Ramsbotham, Rt. Hon. H.
Train, Sir J.


Kerr, Sir John Graham (Sco'sh Univs.)
Ramsden, Sir E.
Tree, A. R. L. F.


Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)
Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.


King-Hall, Commander W. S. R.
Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan


Leech, Sir J. W.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Robertson, D.
Warrender, Sir V.


Levy, T.
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Lindsay, K. M.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)
Wayland, Sir W. A.


Llewellin. Colonel J. J.
Rowlands, G.
Webbe, Sir W. Harold


Lloyd, G. W.
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.
Wells, Sir Sydney


Loftus, P. C.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.
White, H. Graham


Lucas, Major Sir J. M.
Russell, Sir Alexander
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Lyons, A. M.
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Salter, Sir J. Arthur (Oxford U.)
Wragg, H.


MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Samuel, M. R. A.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


McCorquodale, M. S.
Sandeman, Sir N. S.



MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)
Schuster, Sir G. E.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


MacDonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Selley, H. R.
Lieut.-Colonel Kerr and Mr. Munro.


McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
Shakespeare, G. H.



McKie, J. H.
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)





NOES.


Adams, D, (Consett)
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Parkinson, J. A.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Pearson, A.


Adamson, W. M.
Hall, W. G. (Colne Valley)
Pethick-Lawrence, R Hon. F. W.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Hardie, Agnes
Price, M. P.


Ammon, C. G.
Hayday, A.
Pritt, D. N.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Ridley, G.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Hicks, E. G.
Riley, B.


Banfield, J, W.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Ritson, J.


Barnes, A. J.
Hollins, A. (Hanley)
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Barr, J.
Hollins, J. H. (Silvertown)
Sexton, T. M.


Beaumont, H. (Batley)
Isaacs, G. A.
Silkin, L.


Bevan, A.
Jackson, W. F.
Silverman, S. S.


Broad, F. A.
Jagger, J.
Sloan, A.


Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Buchanan, G.
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Burke, W. A.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)


Cape, T.
Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.
Sorensen, R. W.


Chater, D.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Stephen, C.


Cluse, W. S.
Lathan, G.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ghl'n-le-Sp'ng)


Cocks, F. S.
Lawson, J. J.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Collindridge, F.
Leach, W.
Summerkill, Dr. Edith


Daggar, G.
Leonard, W.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Dalton, H.
Leslie, J. R.
Thurtle, E.


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Logan, D. G.
Tinker, J. J.


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Lunn, W.
Tomlinson, G.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Viant, S. P


Dobbie, W.
McEntee, V. La T.
Walkden, A. G.


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Maclean, N.
Watkins, F. C.


Ede, J. C.
Marshall, F.
Watson, W. McL.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Maxton, J.
Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)


Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
Messer, F.
Wilkinson, Ellen


Frankel, D.
Milner, Major J.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Gallacher, W.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Gardner, B. W.
Mort, D. L.
Wilmot, John


Gibson, R. (Greenock)
Muff, G.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Naylor, T. E.
Woodburn, A.


Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Oliver, G. H.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Paling, W.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Groves, T. E.
Parker, J.
Mr. Mathers and Mr. Charleton.

Mr. Ness Edwards: I beg to move, in page 20, line 6, column 2, after "pension," to insert:
and as if after the words 'subject as hereinafter provided,' there were inserted the words 'either in person or by some other person who satisfies the tribunal that he is a relative or personal friend of the applicant.'

10.54 p.m.

Mr. Colville: This Amendment deals with a point similar to that raised in an earlier Clause in the Bill, and while we do not feel that we could include this proposal as a statutory injunction, I am able to say that it is intended to take this point into account in making a rule which, if it is not in the exact words proposed, will at any rate effect substantially what the hon. Member wishes.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. James Griffiths: I beg to move, in page 20, line 13, column 2, to leave out from "behalf" to the end of line 23.

Mr. Colville: I think this does not carry out what the hon. Member has in mind. If it were carried, it would interfere with the Board's power to make rules. I suggest, therefore, that in the interest of what we all have in mind we should allow the Bill to stand as it is.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made:

In page 20, line 29, column 2, leave out "In Sub-section (2)," and insert "Subsection (2) shall have effect as if."

In line 33, column 2, leave out "in Subsection (4)," and insert "Sub-section (4) shall have effect as if."

In line 36, column 2, after "and," insert "the Section shall have effect as if."

In line 46, column 2, after "conjunction," insert:
as if for the words 'him' and 'he' respectively wherever those words occur there were substituted the words 'them' and 'they,' as if for the words 'thinks,' 'makes,' and 'intends,' respectively, there were substituted the words 'think,' 'make,' and 'intend,' and as if for the words 'the Minister's' there were substituted the word 'their.' "—[Mr. Colville.]

10.59 p.m.

Mr. Kingsley Griffith: I beg to move, in page 21, line 28, column 2, to leave out "rules" and to insert "regulations."
The Schedule says that regulations in the Unemployment Act, 1934, shall be passed on into this Act. The Amendment makes a substantial difference, because rules are things which can be made and slipped in without anyone noticing them, whereas regulations have to have the positive assent of the two Houses of Parliament. It seems to me to be allowing rather a lot of latitude to the Board to say that what already exists under the Act of 1934 by regulation can be adopted now with regard to these old age pensioners merely by rule. I would like from the Minister some explanation why he has chosen this procedure, and, if possible, an assurance from him that he will consider between now and the Report stage whether the word "regulations" which we have suggested would not be better here than the word "rules."

11 p.m.

Mr. Colville: I shall be glad to consider the hon. Member's suggestion, but there is a difficulty. The procedure by regulations is obviously a fuller procedure than by rules. The procedure by rules is intended to be simpler, and in general rules are, of course, a smaller and less important qualification. I will certainly look into the point which the hon. Member has raised, but as I see it there is a disadvantage in introducing a longer and more cumbersome process. If, in fact, the rules were capable of modification I agree that would be a different matter. Perhaps, with that the hon. Member will be content to withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. K. Griffith: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

11.1 p.m.

Mr. Woodburn: I beg to move, in page 25, line 12, to leave out "otherwise than in money."
This is rather important, because this is the first time this has been inserted as a practice in Scotland. The reasons why about 25 local authorities on Saturday supported the deletion of these words is that many old age pensioners find themselves in a difficulty in being unable to reach the place where they are to get relief in kind unless, for example, the local authority is prepared to pay their bus fare. Under this Clause the local authority would not even be entitled to give the bus fare to people who live in


isolated places to enable them to get the relief in kind.
There is another problem. Old age pensioners sometimes lose their old age pension books. They require relief, not in kind but in money so as to get over their temporary difficulty. About 25 of these local authorities in Glasgow have supported us and they are very anxious that something should be done so that this kind of emergency can be attended to.

11.2 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Captain McEwen): While I fully realise the difficulties which have been pointed out by the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Stirling (Mr. Woodburn) it must be remembered that the words objected to are incorporated in the Eighth Schedule to the Unemployment Act, 1934, which refers to unemployed persons, and so far no difficulty has arisen in the working of that Schedule in Scotland. It is to be noted that under this Bill applicants to the Assistance Board will have a weekly cash sum paid as a pension, and it is presumably only in very few cases indeed and special cases such as the temporary loss of a pension book where no cash payment will be available. Payment in kind is quite a common practice in Scotland, as the hon. Gentleman will know; payment is often made in the form of clothing, food, coal and other articles. As far as this Amendment is concerned, the effect of it would be to allow a public assistance authority to afford some cash relief to a pensioner without any right of recovery of the relief so paid by the Assistance Board. It is thought that cases of necessity can be met in Scotland, as in England, by a grant in kind. I think I can give a general assurance that the machinery of the Board is adequate to meet in good time all cases not within the proviso as it stands at present.

11.5 p.m.

Mr. Woodburn: Dealing with old people is a different thing from dealing with unemployed people. Unemployed people may be able-bodied and capable of getting over the difficulties of travel, but we have found in Scotland that old people, even when given relief in kind, also need their bus fares to enable them to get to shops in isolated districts. The mere fact

that a provision of the kind proposed is in some unemployment Statute, does not make it suitable for this Bill. This practice has never been followed in connection with public assistance in Scotland, and the local authorities resent the suggestion that they are not to be trusted. I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman should have regard to the feeling of the local authorities in this matter.

11.6 p.m.

Mr. Davidson: I would urge the Government to accept this Amendment. The hon. and gallant Gentleman himself has agreed that the effect would not be widespread, but would affect only occasional cases in Scotland. The public assistance authorities in Scotland have always acted on the principle that where they can give cash, they should do so. As has been said, clothes and boots are given in many cases, but where there has been urgent need for money to pay bus fares or to meet special difficulties, assistance has been given in cash. This would involve the Government in no extra cost, and I urge them to make this concession for a peculiar section of the community which needs this extra assistance.

Mr. Maclean: Might I ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman to consider this Amendment in the light of the next Amendment on the Paper, which proposes that such help should be given without a stipulation that the emergency should be "sudden or urgent"? Surely the Government will yield this point, in view of the present position under the Poor Law in Scotland?

Captain McEwen: While I cannot give way on this point, I am authorised by my right hon. Friend to say that, in view of the special circumstances in Scotland, such as the longer distances which have to be travelled, he is prepared to look into this point between now and the Report stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

11.8 p.m.

Mr. Woodburn: I beg to move, in page 25, line 13, to leave out, "sudden or urgent."
These words seem to me to constitute an unnecessary limitation, because if the matter is one of necessity, there is no point in inserting words which might introduce undesirable questions of definition.

11.9 p.m.

Captain McEwen: I am afraid we cannot accept the Amendment. The effect of it would be to make it possible for public assistance authorities to supplement otherwise than by money at any time or over any period, payments made by the Assistance Board to old age pensioners. At a meeting between the Department and representatives of local authority associations held recently the authorities sought and obtained an assurance that local authorities would be relieved of the obligation to afford outdoor relief to pensioners, as is the case at present with applicants for unemployment assistance. Therefore, while I can give an undertaking that this point will be looked at, I should point out that it is covered to a certain extent by the undertaking already given.

11.10 p.m.

Mr. Davidson: In view of the fact that it is naturally covered, may we have an assurance that the whole question as it affects Scotland will be considered in line with the practice of public assistance authorities between now and the Report stage?

Captain McEwen: I must point out that the representatives of the local authorities' association obtained an assurance that the local authorities would be relieved of the obligation.

Mr. Woodburn: On that understanding, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

11.11 p.m.

Mr. Woodburn: I beg to move, in page 25, line 15, after "needs," to insert:
and needs for maintenance of health or prevention of illness.
Medical necessity seems to be far too rigid a line to draw in these cases of old people, and I suggest that the words of the Amendment would cover circumstances which arise in the cases of old people but do not arise in the cases of people of normal health. The Amendment does not mean any practical difference except that it allows a generous possibility of treating people who may not come within the strict rule of medical necessity. It allows the possibility of providing for the maintenance of health and the prevention of illness apart from the mere provision of medicine.

11.12 p.m.

Captain McEwen: I regret that I am unable to accept the Amendment, which is not as reasonable as would appear on the face of it. It would lead to difficulty in determining the duties of local authorities and the Assistance Board, respectively. The short reason for not accepting the Amendment is that at present local authorities have full power to meet medical needs. Needs must be either medical or non-medical. If medical they must be dealt with by the local authority—the public health authority. If they are not they will be dealt with by the Board.

Mr. Woodburn: Does the definition of "medical needs" legally include the terms of the Amendment in regard to interpretation by local authorities?

Sir Edmund Findlay: Before that question is answered, may I ask my hon. and gallant Friend whether he will give some idea of what the Queen's nurses do in regard to this service?

Captain McEwen: In reply to my hon. Friend, I would say that the full range of the medical services of the local authorities is available to old age pensioners as it is to all other citizens. As to the question of the hon. Member for East Stirling (Mr. Woodburn), medical needs means:
the need of medical or surgical assistance, including any drugs, medical or surgical appliances, or a nursing or similar service.

It is defined in the Act.

11.14 p.m.

Mr. Woodburn: I cannot see why in the case of the old people the Government should resist a slight expansion of that in order to cover the maintenance of health or the prevention of illness. Old people require to be looked after very carefully according to the Scottish Board of Health's own circular. Therefore something ought to be put in in order to give authority to the local authority, or you must set up some new establishment in connection with the Board to look after the kindly attention that these old people need. It would seem that the Government cannot resist the Amendment to enlarge the position slightly to give the local authority the right to take that care that they have been compelled to take in the past with regard to the old people.

Sir E. Findlay: I think we might ask the Under-Secretary to state whether the


nursing associations take all these things into account and that none of these old people in Scotland are without attention.

11.17 p.m.

Mr. Davidson: I do ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman to recognise that the Minister of Health himself has assured us that everything possible will be done for the welfare of these old folk. We have been used in Scotland to assisting them to prevent illness and sickness as well as medical attention and care and surely the Government does not want to penalise any of the old folks by refusing to accept the Amendment? This is merely an Amendment which asks for an extension of sympathy and the prevention of illness among these old folks and no penalty should be laid upon these individuals because these steps have been taken. I ask the Secretary of State for Scotland to accept this Amendment.

Mr. Charles Brown: Is it not a fact that these old folk, like everybody else, do not like people poking about in their houses?

11.19 p.m.

Mr. Colville: It is not from lack of sympathy but from practical considerations that I cannot accept the Amendment. I think it would lead to the overlapping of duties of the local authorities and the Assistance Board and would not, I think, make for the contentment of the old people. As my hon. and gallant Friend the Under-Secretary has explained, the whole range of services of the local authorities and Queen's nurses are available, and will continue to be available, for these old people.

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 97; Noes, 146.

Division No. 47]
AYES.
[11.20 p.m.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Harvey, T. E.
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Hayday, A.
Price, M. P.


Ammon, C. G.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Pritt, D. N.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Hicks, E. G.
Ridley, G.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Ritson, J.


Banfield, J. W.
Issacs, G. A.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Barnes, A. J.
Jackson, W. F.
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Barr, J.
Jagger, J.
Sexton, T. M.


Beaumont, H. (Batley)
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Silkin, L.


Buchanan, G.
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Silverman, S. S.


Burke, W. A.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Sloan, A.


Cape, T.
Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Charleton, H. C.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Cocks, F. S.
Lathan, G.
Sorensen, R. W.


Collindridge, F.
Lawson, J. J.
Stephen, C.


Daggar, G.
Leach, W.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Dalton, H.
Leonard, W.
Summerskill, Dr. Edith


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Logan, D. G.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Lunn, W.
Thurtle, E.


Dobbie, W.
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Tinker, J. J.


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
McEntee, V. La T.
Tomlinson, G.


Ede, J. C.
Maclean, N.
Viant, S. P.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Marshall, F.
Watson, W. McL.


Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
Maxton, J.
Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)


Frankel, D.
Messer, F.
Wilkinson, Ellen


Gallacher, W.
Milner, Major J.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Mort, D. L.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Muff, G.
Wilmot, John


Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Oliver, G. H.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Paling, W.
Woodburn, A.


Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Parker, J.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Hall, W. G. (Colne Valley)
Parkinson, J. A.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hardie, Agnes
Pearson, A.
Mr. Mathers and Mr. Adamson.




NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Colville, Rt. Hon. John


Albery, Sir Irving
Broadbridge, Sir G. T.
Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)


Anderson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Sc'h Univ's)
Brocklebank, Sir Edmund
Courtauld, Major J. S.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Brooke, H. (Lewisham, W.)
Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.


Assheton, R.
Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.


Beechman, N. A.
Campbell, Sir E. T.
Cross, R. H.


Bennett, Sir E. N.
Carver, Major W. H.
Davits, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)


Bird, Sir R. B.
Cary, R. A.
Dodd, J. S.


Blair, Sir R.
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Doland, G. F.


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C.
Channon, H.
Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)


Boulton, W. W.
Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Duncan, J. A. L. (Kensington, N.)


Bracken, B.
Christie, J. A.
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.


Brass, Sir W.
Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Ellis, Sir G.




Elliston, Capt. G. S.
Levy, T.
Samuel, M. R. A.


Emery, J. F.
Lindsay, K. M.
Sandeman, Sir N. S.


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Llewellin, Colonel J. J.
Schuster, Sir G. E.


Entwistle, Sir C. F.
Lloyd, G. W.
Selley, H. R.


Everard, Sir William Lindsay
Loftus, P. C.
Shakespeare, G. H.


Fox, Sir G. W. G.
Lucas, Major Sir J. M.
Shute, Colonel Sir J. J.


Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.


Gibson, Sir C. G. (Pudsey and Otley)
McCorquodale, M. S.
Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.


Gledhill, G.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


Goldle, N. B.
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald


Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)
McKie, J. H.
Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.


Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Grimston, R. V.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Storey, S.


Hacking, Rt. Hon. Sir D. H.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Hammersley, S. S.
Mitchell, Col. H. (Brentf'd &amp; Chisw'k)
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Hannah, I. C.
Morris, J. P. (Salford, N.)
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Touche, G. C.


Harbord, Sir A.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Train, Sir J.


Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Munro, P.
Tree, A. R. L. F.


Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.
Tufnell, Lieut-Commander R. L.


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Peake, O.
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan


Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Holmes, J. S.
Procter, Major H. A.
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Horsbrugh, Florence
Radford, E. A.
Warrendcr, Sir V.


Howitt, Dr. A. B.
Ramabotham, Rt. Hon. H.
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)
Wayland, Sir W. A.


Hume, Sir G. H.
Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)
Webbe, Sir W. Harold


Hunter, T.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)
Wells, Sir Sydney


Joel, D. J. B.
Robertson, D.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)
Wragg, H.


Kerr, Sir John Graham (Sco'sh Univs.)
Rowlands, G.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.



King-Hall, Commander W. S. R.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Russell, Sir Alexander
Lieut.-Colonel Kerr and Major Sir James Edmondson.


Leech, Sir J. W.
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, to be considered To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 24.]

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932.

Resolved,

"That the Order made by the Secretary of State under the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, for extending Section one of that Act to the urban district of Filey, a copy of which was presented to this House on 20th February, be approved."

Resolved,

"That the Order made by the Secretary of State under the Sunday Entertainments

Act, 1932, for extending Section one of that Act to the urban district of Frome, a copy of which was presented to this House on 20th February be approved."—[Mr. Peake.]

The remaining Orders were read and postponed.

Adjournment.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain Margesson.]

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-eight Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.